Monday, 5 May 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with the mismanagement of the Victorian Otway forests, and we pray that: The Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant expressions of public concern, e.g. petitions, by the formation of a committee to represent public requests. by Senator Vallentine (from 155 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled and to the Australian Government: This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that: foreign warships visiting Australian ports give acceptability to the increasing militarization of the Indian and Pacific Oceans; W.A. endures a visit of a foreign warship on average every 1.5 weeks; a situation of de facto ``home-porting'' facilities exists in W.A.; there is increasing citizen concern that nuclear armed/nuclear powered warships put Australian ports and people at risk in many ways. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Australian Government refuse entry to Australian ports to all foreign warships. by Senator Vallentine (from 129 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 83 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate on Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because: We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 80 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth. That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 37 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth. That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Senators Chaney (from 14 citizens) and Messner (from 152 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any suggestion that family allowances be paid at a flat rate and instead should ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 66 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 Withers (from 23 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 your petitioners are gravely concerned at the practice of strip searching women prisoners in Armagh Gaol, Northern Ireland. We are appalled that the prison authorities have demanded:- Women prisoners in Armagh gaol to be strip searched up to 32 times more frequently, on average, than women prisoners in Britain. Individual women prisoners in Armagh to be strip searched up to 28 times in one month. The occasional participation of male prison officers in forcing women to undergo strip searches. The insistence that menstruating women remove their sanitary towels and tampons, in order to facilitate strip searches. The strip searches currently being practised are violent, degrading and humiliating. They are a blatant violation of human rights, clearly contravening Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Your petitioners gravely feel that the employment of strip searching in the North of Ireland, by the British Government is designed not for security purposes but to dehumanise and violate the basic dignity of these women prisoners. Your petitioners view the British Governments strip search policy in Ireland as an extension of Britains war effort presently being conducted to prevent Ireland becoming an Independent 32 County Irish Sovereign State. Your petitioners humbly call upon the Australian Government to lodge a protest with the British Government, calling upon the British government and the Northern Ireland Office to discontinue the practice of strip searching women prisoners in Armagh Gaol in Northern Ireland immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 1,444 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Federal Government is presently considering changes to the administrative arrangements for taxation assessment appeals; (b) recognises that the Government's refusal to provide definitive information as to whether such a proposition includes the abolition of the Taxation Board of Review and replacement thereof by a new system of appeals under the control of the legalistic Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), is causing alarm and chaos amongst Australian taxpayers; and (c) calls upon the Government to make a clear and responsible statement of intent in relation to any proposed change in the present appeals system, particularly in view of the alleged 94,000 outstanding appeals listed against taxation assessments, and the concern that any new system under the AAT will limit the rights of taxpayers to appeal against assessments. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the extermination of 1.5m Armenians by the Ottoman/Turkish Government during World War I constitutes one of the first instances in our century of the crime of genocide; (b) condemns the Armenian Genocide of 1915, committed by the Ottoman Turkish Government; (c) condemns all attempts to deny, obfuscate or demean the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide; (d) recognises that the failure of the world unremittingly to remember and condemn genocide and punish genocidist Governments, can only promote its repetition, just as such failure in respect of the Armenian Genocide led Adolf Hitler to cite such failure as a precedent providing encouragement of acts of genocide by the Nazis; (e) recognises that the Armenian Genocide is being intentionally ignored by members of the international community; (f) urges, pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, that the Government of Australia make all appropriate representations in international forums to secure the unequivocal recognition and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide; and (g) urges, pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, that the Government of Australia establish a memorial, at an appropriate World War I memorial in Sydney or Canberra, dedicated to the victims of the Armenian Genocide. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the warning by the Reserve Bank of Australia in its April Bulletin that `Australia's relative performance on inflation appears likely to worsen in the coming year', which is on expert opinion from the Federal Government's monetary policy adviser that is totally at odds with repeated assurances from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that Australia's inflation rate has peaked and will improve; (b) notes that economic activity in Australia has fallen by 2.3 points, its biggest monthly drop for three years, in the Westpac-Melbourne Institute Index for Applied Social and Economic Research for February 1986; (c) reminds the Government of repeated warnings over recent months by the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Secretary to the Treasury of the consequences for economic growth and employment of the Government's refusal to take a stronger stand against rising Government spending and labour costs and its excessive reliance on a policy of high interest rates; and (d) calls on the Government immediately to introduce a mini-budget to correct this disastrous situation. 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. Central Land Council-Annual Report 1984-85. 2. Human Rights Commission-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. 3. Milk Authority of the Australian Capital Territory-Annual Report 1984-85. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, left Australia on 3 May to travel overseas. He is visiting the United States and Europe. In his absence, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, will be Acting Minister for Defence. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Does the Government agree that the dignity and standards of the High Court of Australia would best be served if Mr Justice Murphy were to resign? Does the Government agree that in all of the circumstances it is inappropriate for Mr Justice Murphy to resume sitting on the High Court Bench tomorrow pending further investigation of outstanding matters, some of which have arisen since his acquittal? I further ask the Leader Government in the Senate: If Mr Justice Murphy does remain on the Bench, will the Government establish by special Act of Parliament a judicial inquiry comprising eminent Australian judges to inquire into and report upon all matters, including those in volume 2 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions, which might bear on Mr Justice Murphy's eligibility to continue on the High Court Bench in terms of section 72 of the Constitution? Senator BUTTON —The matters which form the general ambience-I am sorry; the general environment for Liberal senators, of Senator Chaney's question have been considered at some stages by the Government today and will be further considered by the Government today. I wish to make no comment about any matters pending that consideration and certainly I do not wish to make any comment which would, in any way, endorse the comments implicit in Senator Chaney's question. Senator MORRIS —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is it true that the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Tim Fischer, said when addressing the National Congress of the Vietnam Veterans' Association last Saturday that he was not the shadow Minister at the time the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam-the Agent Orange royal commission-reported? Did he distance himself from the position that the Opposition adopted at the time of wholeheartedly endorsing the Royal Commission's report? Does this mean that every time a change takes place in the composition of the shadow ministry we can expect an about-face by the Opposition? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate will recall that when I presented the report of the Royal Commission to the Senate last year a number of criticisms were made about the Government's holding of a royal commission in respect of the use of chemical agents and the effect on those who served in Vietnam. In fact, Opposition spokesman criticised the Royal Commission as a waste of public money. Of course, that was not the view of the Government, which sought to establish a commission to inquire into all the aspects of the matter, and a very careful statement was put down by the Government in respect of that Royal Commission. I was therefore very surprised to find at the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia's conference on the weekend Mr Fischer, the current shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, taking an entirely different position from that taken by the Opposition last year. He obviously distanced himself from the statements made by his Party at that time. One can only come to the conclusion that, as the Opposition changes its shadow Ministers, it changes its attitudes and policies. It is a bit like saying that it changes its position as often as it changes its socks or stockings. One found a complete inconsistency between the views taken by the Opposition on that occasion and the clearly opportunist approach taken by Mr Fischer at the Vietnam Veterans Association conference on Saturday. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Did the Minister note two significant reports today, one from the Business Council of Australia and the other from National Australia Bank Ltd, calling on the Government to place greater emphasis on fiscal policy to restrain inflation through a reduced Budget deficit and a more flexible and balanced approach to wage fixing? Did the Minister also note that an index prepared by the Westpac Banking Corporation and the Melbourne University Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research showed that economic activity in Australia fell by 2.3 points in February-the biggest monthly drop for three years? In the light of these reports, Australia's debt burden, its poor export performance and the lack of investment by business, will the Government recognise the growing concern about the economic indicators by taking the necessary decisions to establish a Budget framework which will restrain inflation and encourage business confidence? I further ask: Will the Government make a major economic statement prior to the end of this parliamentary session? Senator BUTTON —I have not had an opportunity to see in the Press today reference to the Business Council and National Australia Bank comments to which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle refers. Let me say, however, that those calls are not entirely surprising to the Government. The calls for greater emphasis on fiscal policy are, if I might say so, even in an ordinary year quite seasonal. They come about two to three months before the Budget and they come every year, as do the autumn leaves. Senator Michael Baume —Which are late, like the Government's action. Senator BUTTON —I do not want to lapse into the sort of philosophical mode of a Chauncey Gardener, but let me say that there is no doubt that these calls are cyclical and come to be expected at this time. It also does not surprise me that Westpac's survey of economic activity shows a significant fall in the month of February. The Government expected that; indeed, the Government has said that it was necessary and desirable that the rate of growth in the Australian economy be slowed, and it has taken quite deliberate measures to see that that happens. I was then asked whether, in the light of poor export performance, trade figures and investment, the Government will make a general economic statement. That is not a matter about which I can make any promise or prediction today. Of course, the Government is concerned about the trade figures; we have had discussions about that in this chamber at Question Time and during debates on various matters of public importance and so on. The Government does not hide from its concern about the trade figures, but we do say that those trade figures are a result of the delusions of governments over many years, and indeed of the Australian community, and are to be anticipated. I make the same comment about poor export performance. On the question of investment in manufacturing, the Government is not totally discouraged by the investment figures, particularly in manufacturing industries. They could be better, but they could be much worse. I do not know whether that helps the honourable senator, but that is my answer. Senator COONEY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has there in recent times been any, and if so what, movement in the farming community away from traditional areas of farming into new ones? If the answer is in the affirmative, can the success of that movement be assessed at this time and, again if the answer is in the affirmative, what success has occurred? Senator WALSH —Senator Cooney mentioned this to me a while ago. I thought he was referring to geographic movement, that is, extension principally of arable farming into marginal rainfall country. There has been some of that in recent years, of course, as there has been at other periods of Australian history. Now, as in previous periods, there has also been a recognition that it has gone too far in some areas into country that is sub-marginal. However, I understand that Senator Cooney is really talking about different products-the same land and the same farmers but changing into different products. To some extent this has happened and for some individual farmers there has been considerable success. I will see whether the Minister for Primary Industry has any comprehensive statistics quantifying movement into new agricultural products, but it is beyond doubt that a number of individual farmers have quite successfully done that. It is probable that there is scope for more of that to be done. However, I think such potential that exists should be assessed with some care. For example, in the past various proposals have been put up as a panacea for the ills of farming. One of the most spectacular I can remember in recent times, for example, was the proposal that there should be established a large scale power alcohol industry, using either grain or sugar cane as raw material. Indeed, I remember that the editor of the National Farmer asserted a couple of years ago that the only thing that stood in the way of development of a major rural industry which would employ 250,000 people was government intransigence-that is, government intransigence in the form of refusal to pay a hidden subsidy of 50c a litre on the production of power alcohol. That, of course, was never a viable proposition. It was quite irresponsibly promoted by a number of people, particularly by the editor of the National Farmer. So although there is some scope for this conclusion, the potential, both in economic terms and quantitatively-that is, the number of new producers who could move in successfully to a new type of agricultural product-should be carefully assessed. Senator CHIPP —I direct my question to Senator Gareth Evans representing his own Department, the Department of Trade, the Department of Foreign Affairs or whoever, but generally the Government. Can he guarantee that the tails-U238-of Australian uranium enriched in the Soviet Union do not finish up in the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons in the French Super Phenix fast breeder reactor? If he can give such an assurance, on what basis can he give it? Senator GARETH EVANS —For a start, the question presupposes that Australian uranium enriched in the Soviet Union on an all-in all-out basis, as I have described it in answer to previous questions, has been sent on by either Finland or Sweden, which I am advised are the only two countries to have used Soviet enrichment facilities for Australian uranium, to other users. I have no information immediately to hand as to whether that has been so. However, as Australian origin nuclear material of this kind is thoroughly kept tagged, it ought to be possible to find that out. But I do not make the assumption that any such material has been sent on from Finland or Sweden to France or, for that matter, anywhere else. Senator Chipp —Don't you know? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Chipp gave me some indication of this question about an hour ago. I have sought information, but it has not been possible to get it in the time available. I have just indicated to the honourable senator that Australian origin nuclear material is tracked, including the product of enrichment processes. I am able to find out the information, but I just was not able to do so in the time I have had available. The second assumption lying behind Senator Chipp's question is that the Super Phenix reactor in France, in Senator Chipp's words, is going to be used for the purpose of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. I simply make the point that at least the claim has been made by the French that the reactor is designed to be utilised solely for energy production purposes and that plutonium there produced will not be used for nuclear weapons. As I understand it, that is the claim that has been made. But let me go on from there to say that there is, of course, an embargo on the supply of Australian origin nuclear material for end use in France while that country continues to test nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. The French authorities indicated to us, when this matter arose in another context some little time ago, that France would not act contrary to this ban. Therefore, having regard also to the very substantial quantities of depleted uranium which now exist in France, irrespective of their availability from some Australian source, there is no reason to believe that France would seek to use Australian uranium in the Super Phenix. Senator Chipp —Do you trust the French Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —We can operate in this respect only on the basis of assurances we have received. Certainly we have no knowledge of any Australian origin nuclear material being used or being earmarked for use for this purpose in the Super Phenix breeder reactor. We have no knowledge of either of those things to date. The final point I make is that regardless of where Australian uranium is enriched, whether it is in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France or anywhere else, from a safeguards point of view, that is to say, ensuring that such material is only ever used for peaceful, non-military purposes, there would be no difficulty in depleted uranium derived from Australian uranium being used in that kind of a reactor in France. I am not saying that it has been or that we want Australian material to be used for any end use in France under our existing policy; but, from a safeguards point of view, there would be no particular difficulty in practice or in principle because the use of such material would be subject to the terms of both the Australia-Euratom and the Australia-France nuclear safeguards agreements. Accordingly, derived plutonium would be available only for peaceful use and would be safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Senator GILES —Has the attention of the Minister for Education been drawn to a report of plans being made by the University of Western Australia to facilitate university entrance for talented secondary school students whose circumstances might otherwise preclude them from tertiary education? Can the Minister comment on the effectiveness of such measures and indicate what Government encouragement can be given to initiatives of this sort? Senator RYAN —I am aware of the intention of the University of Western Australia to take special steps to encourage students from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter the university and complete their courses successfully. I believe that the University of Western Australia ought to be congratulated for implementing the Government's policy on increased access by disadvantaged students. It is a fact that, despite the broadening of the social mix of the university population in recent years, it is still the case that students from lower socio-economic groups are still under-represented, particularly in the older established universities such as the University of Western Australia. A number of programs of this nature currently receive funds from the equity provisions of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's program. For example, at both the University of Melbourne and the University of Sydney programs of a similar kind are funded where students from disadvantaged backgrounds are identified, counselled and assisted so that they can enter and study successfully at these universities. In Western Australia, the Western Australian College of Advanced Education has received $16,000 for a pre-tertiary studies course for Aborigines. The Western Australian Institute of Technology has received a grant of $12,500 for women in business and administration. These are two examples of the kinds of projects that are currently being funded in Western Australia to broaden the socio-economic composition of the student body. It may well be that the University of Western Australia will receive similar funding should it apply under the equity provisions. In any event it is very encouraging to see universities acting in a socially responsible way and taking special steps to ensure that the benefits available to students are more broadly available than they have been in the past. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to a pamphlet published by the Australian Sports Aid Foundation which is headed `Australia Bound for Edinburgh '86'. Inside the flyleaf it has a message from Mr Hawke imploring us all to support financially the Australian Commonwealth Games team which goes to Edinburgh this year in July. The pamphlet includes the statement: The Australian Government has incorporated the Australian Sports Aid Foundation with the intention of making your donation to the team tax deductible. Does this definitely mean that the money paid to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation is tax deductible? Secondly, is any other money paid to support the Australian Edinburgh team also tax deductible? Senator WALSH —As I recall it-I will have this checked with the Treasurer-donations to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation are tax deductible. I am not aware of whether other deductions to support the team are tax deductible. Senator TOWNLEY —I ask a supplementary question. Does that not mean that the Government is allowing people, through one of its own corporations, to make something tax deductible that would not otherwise be tax deductible? Senator WALSH —As I recall it, donations to the Sports Aid Foundation, irrespective of whether the funds are ultimately destined for that particular purpose or some other purpose, are all tax deductible. But I will have that checked with the Treasurer. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that the Queensland Young Nationals decided yesterday that the Federal Government should establish an `operation bludger' campaign to stamp out alleged social security fraud? Does the Government support a proposal such as this which would cause distress to many social security recipients? Is it fair to compare the Young Nationals' proposal with the recent Operation Noah drug campaign? Senator GRIMES —I did notice in the paper this morning that the Young Nationals in Queensland had urged that we have an `operation bludger' campaign to get at what they describe as unemployment beneficiaries who are ripping off the system. Senator Walsh —Other bludgers they don't mind. Senator GRIMES —As Senator Walsh has said, the Young Nationals are very selective in the people they pick out. Each year they come up with a proposal of this type. I point out that last year the amount of social security overpayments was estimated to be about $20m. The amount of money which is ripped off the system through tax avoidance and tax evasion is generally estimated to be some hundreds of millions of dollars-in fact it is estimated by the Australian Taxpayers Association to be over $2,000m-but we never have the Young Nationals in Queensland concerned about this sort of rip-off. They are quite selective in what they do. What they want is for people to dob each other in, particularly those on unemployment benefit, in order to cut down the benefits. Senator Townley —Hear, hear! Senator GRIMES —I expect Senator Townley to agree with that thoroughly. But Senator Townley would never agree to people dobbing in people who were indulging in tax evasion or tax avoidance, because he thinks that is fair game and fair play. Senator Townley —I didn't say that. Senator GRIMES —Of course he did. He says it all the time. He is up to his ears in it and always has been. Senator Withers —Up to his hair line. Senator GRIMES —That is unkind, Senator Withers. Also, the Young Nationals in Queensland never complain about the use of public money when it is put to providing a dam on the farm of one of the Premier's children. This is perfectly acceptable, but the Young Nationals come out and want people to dob each other in. They say that they want to do this because Operation Noah was successful. Operation Noah was about a very much more serious problem; a problem that goes right throughout the community. Operation Noah was not the type whereby people were being asked to dob in people who were getting small social security benefits and to create an atmosphere, particularly among people in poorer suburbs, in which people would be encouraged under those circumstances to dob each other in for all sorts of reasons. Finally, I point out that each year people report others for what they think are social security frauds. That has gone on for many years and the figures each year are quite consistent. About a quarter of these reports result in people having their social security benefits reduced. In about 70 per cent of the cases no action should be taken because the reports are not founded. In another 5 or 6 per cent of cases people end up getting more than they got before. That sort of approach by the Young Nationals will only lead to a society whereby people are walking around with great suspicion of their neighbours. I suggest that the Young Nationals would be better off looking at the real wasted money in this community and the real ripping off of revenue which occurs in tax evasion and tax avoidance and in some of the expenditures of the Queensland Government. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the decision of the United Kingdom Government to restrict defence intelligence information to New Zealand, as reported in the Australian today. How does this decision affect Australia's practice of passing on United Kingdom defence intelligence to New Zealand? Does the fact that now both the United States of America and the United Kingdom find New Zealand's defence policy such that it is considered unwise to pass on sensitive intelligence affect the Australian Government's attitude to passing on intelligence gathered from Australian sources? How will these developments affect intended changes to the Government's foreign affairs and defence policy to build a new defence relationship with New Zealand outside of the ANZUS Treaty? Senator GARETH EVANS —That question is more appropriately addressed to the Minister for Defence. I do not have a brief from him on it, but I will seek one and give Senator Hill a reply as soon as I can. Senator FOREMAN —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation state whether airline security has been reviewed in the light of recent developments in the Middle East, in particular the threats of world-wide retaliation against the United States of America? Senator GIETZELT —The Government deplores all acts of terrorism, particularly those that take place from time to time on aircraft or at airports. Consequently, having regard to events over the past few years in respect of the airline industry, the Government is consistently reviewing the security procedures with a view to learning from overseas experience and protecting the passengers, the aircraft and citizens generally who frequent our airports. The Government is constantly in contact with overseas specialists who are taking extraordinary precautions to prevent terrorism as it affects aircraft and passengers generally. Consequently, those matters are on the agenda of the Department of Aviation almost daily. That has taken place particularly since the recent difficulties that have occurred in various parts of the world. We have responsibility for Qantas Airways Ltd and British Airways, which have been subjected to certain difficulties. We have taken additional steps to protect all of the security procedures in the hope that we will avoid any of the disasters as far as Australian aircraft or aircraft using Australian airports are concerned. Senator SHORT —I refer the Minister representing the Prime Minister to the Prime Minister's admission yesterday on Channel 9's Sunday program that the Government is making slow progress in agreeing on measures for the forthcoming Budget that will allow its trilogy commitment to be met in 1986-87? Will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will, in fact, honour its trilogy commitment in the 1986 Budget? If not, what parts of the trilogy will be broken? Senator BUTTON —I did not hear what the Prime Minister said on Channel 9's Sunday program yesterday and I do not know whether the Prime Minister said anything about the trilogy commitment at all. It is not suggested in the question that he did. I believe that that commitment can be honoured. Senator RICHARDSON —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to recent comments by Opposition Leader Howard and Deputy Opposition Leader Brown in which they have emphasised the Opposition's commitment to a deregulated system of wage fixation. Is the Minister aware of an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 28 April 1986 which outlined the findings of a report prepared by the senior economist at Sydney University, Dr Flora Gill? The report claims that a deregulated wage fixing system does not necessarily ensure that wages would be determined by a company's capacity to pay and cautions against uncritical acceptance of collective bargaining as a panacea for problems associated with wage fixation. Can the Minister advise the Senate of the accuracy of the claims made in the report? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report referred to in the Sydney Morning Herald of a couple of weeks ago, I think it was. In general I think anybody whose judgments are determined by evidence and experience rather than ideological prejudice would have to agree with the conclusions which Dr Gill put forward. We have had in Australia in the past and have in other countries at present an empirical testing of the wage outcomes under collective bargaining and under centralised wage fixing. We had the dreadful experience in Australia after the last Government had its first flirtation with collective bargaining, commencing in May 1981. We had a wages explosion of 14 per cent in 1981 and 13 per cent in 1982. One would have thought that a chimpanzee would have learnt from that experience that experiments at times of reasonably high economic growth with free wage bargaining are likely to produce a wages explosion. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, this is occurring at a time of continuing recession. In the United Kingdom the Thatcher Government's experiment with a deregulated labour market has produced substantial increases in real wages for the employed, even though the economy is in deep recession, has an unemployment rate of around 13 per cent and still going up. Even under those circumstances those who are employed have achieved substantial increases in real wages. Contrast that with the situation in Australia, where after three years of historically high economic growth, real wages have in fact fallen-or they are about to fall with the next national wage case-and real unit labour costs have been reduced to the lowest point since the late 1960s. The fundamental error made by these ideological bigots, who assert that lower wage outcomes would result from a deregulated labour market is that they ignore the existence of unions. If there were no organisation on the labour side of the market-place their theories might well be soundly based; particularly in periods of economic slump wages might fall quite considerably. But the fact is that unions do exist; they cover by far the greater part of the work force in Australia, as they do in the UK. Given that reality, from all the empirical evidence that is available, it is inescapable that a deregulated labour market would produce higher wage outcomes than have prevailed in Australia over the last three years. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Following the disclosure that seven transport unions in Victoria are giving themselves, their spouses, dependants and retired members free travel on all public transport any- where in Victoria, at a cost of $2m over the last eight weeks, and enforcing their illegal agreement by coercion and by reporting to their union anyone who refuses to comply, I ask: As the Federal Government intends to tax fringe benefits received by employees, does it intend to tax the Victorian Government on the fringe benefits received by employees, does it intend to tax the Victorian Government on the fringe benefits these unionists are receiving at taxpayers' expense? Senator GIETZELT —I think the short answer to that question is no. Senator MAGUIRE —Does the Minister representing the Treasurer have information on employment levels in the restaurant industry in the wake of the Government's crackdown last year on the subsidised lunches? Are there any signs overall of the severe slump in the industry predicted last November and December by Opposition spokespersons in this place with the apparent certainty of the sun rising in the morning? If there are no signs of a restaurant slump, does this raise doubts now as to the validity of current Opposition claims about the impact on the economy of the Government's current tax avoidance crackdown? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, the Opposition has a very consistent record of swallowing the claims of industry propagandists and then regurgitating them in the Senate. It has done this about almost every component of the tax package. Senator Maguire referred in particular to the fringe benefits tax on entertainment or, as it is more commonly known, the ending of the free lunch, and the ridiculous claims that were made by assorted members of the Opposition-I will specify some of them in a moment-about the alleged employment effects of that taxation change. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for employment in restaurants, hotels and personal services show that in August 1985, which was the last full month prior to the disallowance of those deductions for entertainment expenses, employment in the industry was 284,000, in round figures. In December 1985, which is the latest figure available, that had increased to 303,000. In other words, there was an increase in industry employment in that very short period in excess of 19,000 people, or 6.9 per cent, at the same time that total industry employment increased by 2.3 per cent. In that short period 2.3 per cent is a very rapid increase in total industry employment, but it is absolutely dwarfed by the massive 6.9 per cent increase in employment in that particular industry. It shows to have been quite ludicrous the assorted claims made by industry propagandists and tax bludgers, which were swallowed and mindlessly regurgitated in the Senate by members of the Opposition. I will give a few examples. According to Senator Messner, 18,500 jobs would be lost. According to American Express International Inc., 40,000 jobs would be lost. According to the national Restaurant and Catering Association, 10,500 jobs would be lost. According to Senator Knowles, quoting the President of the Restaurant and Caterers Association of Western Australia, there had been a drop in business of between 25 and 40 per cent. Perhaps there was in the particular restaurant that Mr Traill operated, perhaps because it was a pretty sleazy second-rate restaurant, but in the industry as a whole the fact is that employment has increased in the four-month period by a massive 6.9 per cent. The prize for the most outrageous, the most irresponsible, the most inaccurate claim of all goes to the mouth from the south, Mr Hodgman, who asserted that there would be 80,000 jobs lost in the industry. What, in fact, happened in the first four months was that employment increased by almost 20,000 or almost 7 per cent. Senator DURACK —I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether, in view of the answer given earlier in Question Time today by Senator Button on behalf of the Government concerning the Government's consideration of the position of Mr Justice Murphy, he maintains the view that he put to the Senate on 29 April 1980, namely: But the fact remains that the standards we require of our judiciary are higher than might be reasonable to require of anyone else. In that respect I rely on no less a presence than Sir Winston Churchill who . . . said in the House of Commons in 1954: `A form of life and conduct far more severe and restricted than that of ordinary people is required from judges and, though unwritten, has been most strictly observed`. Senator GARETH EVANS —I maintain that view which I expressed in 1980. I also maintain the view that Chief Justice Barwick, who was the recipient of that expression of view, should have honoured the principle in question, which he spectacularly did not. Beyond that, I have no further comment on the present matter. I simply endorse what Senator Button said. Senator COATES —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen reports that the Leader of the Opposition has promised, among other things, to bring back the situation in which only 5 per cent of superannuation lump sums will be subject to income tax? What would be the cost of such a move? Is there any way in which it could be justified on economic or equity grounds? Senator WALSH —I certainly have seen the reports to which Senator Coates referred. That promise is one of many irresponsible expenditure and taxation promises which the Opposition Leader has delivered as he has travelled around the countryside. The earliest time at which such a promise could be activated-I note parenthetically that I do not believe that it will be, because the Leader of the Opposition will not be in a position to activate it-would be in the 1988 Budget. By that time, the loss to revenue which would follow the termination of the changes to superannuation lump sum taxation, which this Government introduced, would be of the order of $250m. In other words, if the most irresponsible Treasurer Australia ever had were to be Prime Minister in 1988 and therefore able to implement his irresponsible promise, there would be a loss to revenue of $250m. Moreover, that figure is based on the situation which existed in 1983 when the present Government changed the taxation law. If that rort were to be reopened by a Liberal Party government the revenue loss would continue to increase because more and more the virtual tax exemption of lump sum superannuation payments was being used as a tax avoidance or evasion device, not in any genuine superannuation sense but as a device for deferring income and avoiding tax on income; that is, at the end of a fairly short period of, say, three or five years there would be an agreement with the employer whereby the employee would notionally have his employment terminated and would then qualify for what has been misdescribed as a superannuation lump sum payment but which, of course, was deferred wages, upon which tax was almost entirely exempt. Given the record of Mr Howard, I am not surprised that he makes that irresponsible promise to repeal that provision because, as I said, his record shows him to have been the most irresponsible Treasurer that the country has ever had. In his last year in office he introduced a Budget which left a prospective deficit of almost $10 billion in the following year-more than 5 per cent of gross domestic product. Opposition senators-Rubbish! Senator WALSH —Those opposite are very sensitive about this. The most irresponsible Treasurer the country has ever seen in his last year as Treasurer set up a budgetary situation which left a deficit of almost $10 billion in the next financial year-more than 5 per cent of GDP. The same Opposition Leader-- Senator Messner —All lies. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Messner to withdraw that remark. Senator Messner —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. This Minister makes a habit of repeating matters long after they have been refuted. He did it last week and he is doing it again today. The fact that an honourable senator should call out `Lies' is scarcely surprising when the Minister's regard for the truth is so patently nil. Mr President, I ask you to discipline this Minister, who is continually abusing Question Time by debating the questions and engaging in scurrilous allegations against Opposition senators, which he then withdraws with a smirk. Senator Gareth Evans —Sanctimony personified. Senator Chaney —Mr President, if we could get a little bit of sanctimonious behaviour-- Senator Gareth Evans —Oozing with sanctimony. Senator Chaney —The Minister for Resources and Energy, who is seated opposite, loves imposing standards on other people but he never imposes standards on his mates. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Chaney to resume his seat. I ask Senator Grimes, Senator Walsh and Senator Evans to remain silent while the Leader of the Opposition is taking a point of order. Senator Chaney —My point is that in this answer, as in most answers the Minister gives, he is debating the question and he is engaging in abuse, and then, when you ask him to withdraw the matter, he does so in a manner which is meant to greatly amuse his colleagues and which is in contempt of this place. The PRESIDENT —Order! I think the Leader of the Opposition would know that no point of order was involved in his remarks. The Chair is not able to control the utterances of Ministers of the Crown in the answers that they make to questions asked of them. But when honourable senators utter words that are generally held as being unparliamentary it is the responsibility of the Chair to seek a withdrawal. That was done in this case. Senator WALSH —It is a matter of record that, in the first week after the 1983 election, the then Treasury Secretary, who is not known, I think it would be fair to observe, to be a great supporter of the Australian Labor Party, presented the incoming Labor Government with a report which showed that the prospective deficit was $9.6 billion for 1983-84. That report came from the then Secretary to the Treasury. We also know that a similar report was delivered a week previously to the then Treasurer and the then Prime Minister. The Secretary to the Treasury left it to the discretion of those two people as to whether the information would be published or whether the then Government would continue to assert falsely, as it was asserting, that the prospective deficit was $6 billion. Having received that official notification from the Treasury the then Treasurer and the then Prime Minister continued to repeat the false claim that the prospective deficit was $6 billion when in fact they had received an official Treasury report that it was in excess of $9 billion. Senator SHEIL —On 11 April I asked the Minister for Education a question with respect to the Chisholm Institute of Technology reportedly having spent $2m on the purchase of a shopping centre. In view of the fact that I am still waiting for an answer on this matter-I see that the Government has given another shared $45,000 to that Institute-will the Minister explain why she is continuing to supply funds to this Institute? Will she also explain what sort of control the Federal Government has over funds supplied to bodies such as the Institute? Senator RYAN —The Commonwealth has quite satisfactory controls over expenditure by higher education institutes of funds that they receive from us. Funds are made available to higher education institutions via the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. For the most part, those funds appear in legislation or in schedules attached to legislation. So Senator Sheil, like any other honourable senator, has the opportunity to scrutinise the funding decisions made by the Commonwealth on the advice CTEC. As far as I know, there is no reason to question the accountability procedures. I apologise to Senator Sheil for the delay in answering the question about the alleged purchase of a shopping centre by the Chisholm Institute. I do not have the information available yet to answer that question but I will make sure that I get it and I will pass it on to Senator Sheil as soon as possible. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, relates to Australian exports. Would the Minister agree that for some time our wine sales to Japan have been dropping considerably and that this could be due to the fact that the Japanese consumer is confused with the similarity of the names Australia and Austria? Would it be sensible for our export products to be labelled in such a way that they could be easily recognised-for example, by depicting a red kangaroo, a koala or something similar which is truly Australian-and for only goods of a high standard to be allowed to use that emblem? Senator BUTTON —I am always amenable to suggestions as long as somebody does not take up the thought that we should brand some of our wines Emu brand, which I recall drinking in London some 15 years ago with totally disastrous effects. I think we should be very careful. I think that I have had a question on this topic before from honourable senators. I am not sure whether Australian wine exports to Japan have been falling in any significant way. I am certainly aware of some confusion with Austrian products generally on the world market, particularly in Japan in relation to wine. That is because neither Australia or Austria is very well known in other parts of the world. I will take up with the Minister for Trade Senator Elstob's suggestions as to the identification of Australian wines. Australian trade commissioners in Japan have been very quick to try to distinguish Australian wines from other wines sold there, including Austrian wines. Nonetheless, the suggestion is worth pursuing and I will put it to the Minister for Trade. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry able to confirm or reject recent reports that the United States is likely to sell 60,000 tonnes of rice to Papua New Guinea at, I understand, a price which will be 50 per cent lower than the Australian export price? I ask that question in light of the fact that Papua New Guinea is Australia's largest recipient of rice. It receives 52.4 per cent of our total exports and 60,000 tonnes would represent something like 53 per cent of that amount. On the prices anticipated this year for the export of Australian rice that would be a loss to Australia of something like $19m. If there is confirmation of that sale, has the Government been able to communicate with the United States Government and what action is it likely, or able, to take? Senator WALSH —I have not seen the reports that have been referred to but I do have a note from the Minister for Primary Industry which confirms that there have been Press reports along the lines indicated and that the rice growers co-operative has expressed strong concern about this matter in a letter to the Prime Minister. I am advised that the Australian Embassy in Washington has been assured by United States officials that no direct export subsidies for rice sales to Papua New Guinea have been requested under the export enhancement program or other United States Government guaranteed credit programs. I am also advised that United States rice prices have declined significantly in recent weeks as a result of other provisions of the United States farm legislation. As that advice is almost a week old-there may be something to add-I will see whether Mr Kerin has anything to add to it. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. I refer the Minister to the guidelines for the importation and manufacture in Australia of contraceptive devices and to the manufacture and marketing within Australia of intra-uterine devices. Given the current concerns and proceedings relating to the Dalkon shield IUD, can the Minister say what is the outcome of investigations on the future importation of IUDs? As the provision of safe and effective contraception is a vital issue for women's health, what steps does or will the Government take to ensure the continuing manufacture and/or importation of safe and reliable products, and does the Government have any proposals or mechanisms, firstly, to monitor the use of contraceptive products; secondly, to recall defective or dangerous products; and thirdly, to address the rights to and mechanisms for achieving compensation for personal injuries arising out of the use of such products? Senator RYAN —For some years IUDs have been subject to approval by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. My colleague the Minister for Health has advised that a sub-committee of the Therapeutic Goods Standards Committee was established in 1985 to develop guidelines to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of IUDs, both medicated and non-medicated. Under present legislation the Commonwealth has power to apply the guidelines only to imported IUDs. The Minister now intends that the guidelines be applied equally, by co-operation between the Department of Health and State and Territory health authorities, to IUDs manufactured in Australia. The issue of national legislation controlling therapeutic goods, including contraceptive devices, is under review. I am concerned that the current litigation against the manufacturer of the Dalkon shield and its attendant publicity may deprive women of a method of contraception which, with the exception of the Dalkon shield, has had acceptable safety. The threat of litigation has led to manufacturers of IUDs withdrawing their products from the market in the United States of America. This withdrawal may lead to an unwillingness on the part of manufacturers to continue research aimed at improving the safety and efficacy of IUDs. That result would not be in the best interests of women. The matter is being pursued by my other ministerial colleagues concerned with it, and I will keep honourable senators informed of developments. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. In answer to Senator Chipp's question the Minister said in relation to the all-in, all-out basis for uranium enrichment in the Soviet Union that he does not know where the tails-uranium 238-end up. Is the Minister then, ignorant of the fact that they do end up in France? If he is ignorant of the situation, why is he ignorant? Secondly, how does the use of this material in France affect our `non-sale' of uranium to France? Thirdly, is he aware of a great deal of evidence to support the fact that Australian U238 is used in the Super Phoenix? Senator GARETH EVANS —I could ask a question in return of Senator Sanders. If he did not listen to the answer I gave earlier today, is he deaf or simply stupid? The reality of the matter is that I said our system of nuclear accounting is such that we can take account of all the material that comes out of the Soviet enrichment process which has emanated from one of the customers to which we sell this material. That is what the all-in, all-out system is about. We do have the capacity to track that material. I simply said that since I had advance notice of this question only at around one o'clock it was not possible in the time available to check with the Australian Safeguards Office as to what the particular answer was so far as any material that had in the past been supplied from Finland or Sweden to the Soviet Union for enrichment purposes was concerned. I said it was my advice that we are perfectly capable of tracking that. That is exactly what I said to Senator Chipp, and the honourable senator should not ask such a fatuous question in the future if he does not want to make a total fool of himself. Senator DEVLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Minister has been approached recently by Samson Films of Sydney for permission to use in the script of a television mini-series for children the word `Anzac'. The series is based on an award winning children's book by Nadia Wheatley. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the issues involved in making such a decision? Senator GIETZELT —Honourable senators may not be aware that the word `Anzac' has been protected since 1920 following the enactment of the War Precautions Act Repeal Act of that period. The use of the word `Anzac' is vested in the Government through the Minister of the day, the purpose being to prevent its commercialisation. For example, one would not want to read about Anzac beer or Anzac milk or Anzac steel. A regulation has been established which gives the Minister of the day the opportunity to decide on the use of the word `Anzac', which members will recall came about as a result of the involvement of Australians and New Zealanders in World War I. There have been many approvals under the regulation over the years. Most Returned Services League branch headquarters have the title Anzac House, which has been approved at various times by the Government or by the Minister of the day. In respect of the television mini-series ANZACS no prior permission was sought but it was given subsequently. I am not necessarily critical of that fact because I think that probably it would not be known generally to the media or to the public at large that the word `Anzac' is a protected word. I hope that as a result of the question put by Senator Devlin some publicity will be given to the matter so that those who may believe that they are able to use the word will know that they need to seek the approval of the current Minister. Senator TEAGUE —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. In the Cabinet's review last week of the fringe benefits tax and its serious detrimental effect on the car industry, did the Cabinet give specific consideration to the impact of that measure in South Australia? Has this assessment of the car industry in South Australia been given to or acknowledged by the Premier of South Australia? Will the Minister now outline to the Senate his assessment of the impact of the tax on the car industry in South Australia-specifically his expectations concerning the extent of the decline in production and the extent of retrenchments? Senator BUTTON —The first question put to me by Senator Teague is whether specific consideration was given to the situation of South Australia. I do not quite know what is meant by that. Of course the situation of South Australia was taken into account, just as the situation of Victoria was taken into account and, to a lesser extent perhaps, the situation of other States because there is not such a concentration of motor vehicle production in other States. I was then asked whether the problem has been adverted to in discussions with the Premier of South Australia. I have had a number of discussions with the Premier of South Australia about this matter. I do not think I should or could disclose all the details of those discussions, but of course the Premier has made his views clear in public statements about the effects of the proposed fringe benefits tax on motor vehicles in that State. I was then asked about employment. I have said all along that a whole range of issues relating to the fringe benefits tax are speculative because a number of matters will bear on the registration of motor vehicles this year and, of course, on the production of vehicles by the local industry. If I may go through them again, they include the current level of interest rates, the fact that 1985 was a record year, the fact that because of the introduction of unleaded petrol there was a pull-forward into 1985 of orders which might normally have occurred in 1986, and a number of matters of that kind. Senator Teague specifically adverted to the question of employment. I say again that there has been a lot of speculation about the effects on employment, some of which is wild speculation in my view. The senator may have noticed a report in the Adelaide Advertiser of 2 May which purports to be a survey of the employment effects on the downturn in the car industry generally. I quote from that report: The Australian car manufacturing industry overall is recruiting and not sacking workers despite a downturn in sales and worries over the looming car tax. Mitsubishi has taken on 400 workers this year. Mitsubishi is a principal manufacturer in South Australia and the reference is to this calendar year. The article continues: Nissan is employing 300 extra; Toyota is advertising jobs to overcome a `shortage'; Ford says it has not had to shed any staff and GMH says the 500 employees it has lost over the past six months are the result of a wind-down of the Woodville plant announced three years ago. In addition, major Adelaide automotive component supplier W.H. Wylie and Co. is advertising for process workers to cover normal attrition and keep up its workforce numbers . . . In SA, Mitsubishi's workforce has increased from about 4,000 at the start of the year to 4,400, while production is running at full capacity of about 300 vehicles a day, despite the general market slump. There are more figures in that article. Senator Teague might like to refer to them for his own enlightenment and, perhaps, check them out if he wants to. I have every reason to believe that they are correct. Within those figures are some companies who say that they are putting more people on and others who say that they are not. There is a certain element of market success in all of that. Mitsubishi has been very successful in the market in the last year and seems to be continuing to be successful. Other manufacturers are less successful. The Government cannot pay the highest regard to those matters in the context of a fringe benefits tax of this kind. Senator HILL(South Australia) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to human rights for the Jewish community in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the refusal of the Soviet Embassy today to accept a petition from Australian parliamentarians in relation thereto. Leave granted. Senator HILL —I thank the Senate. Today, in company with Senator Macklin representing the Australian Democrats and Mr Alan Griffiths of the other place representing the Australian Labor Party, I, representing the Liberal Party of Australia, attempted to present a petition of 120 members of the Australian Parliament, from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to officials of the Soviet Embassy in Canberra. We were accompanied on this visit by Leslie Caplan, President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Diane Shteinman, the Convenor of the Australian Campaign for Soviet Jewry and Len Dixon, the President of the Australian Capital Territory Jewish Community. The petition was in the following terms: We, the undersigned Parliamentary representatives of the Australian people, call on the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to permit the Jewish Community within the U.S.S.R. freedom to practise their religion free of persecution and discrimination, and freedom to be reunited with their families and People in Israel. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the list of parliamentarians who supported the petition I have just read. Leave granted. The list read as follows- Senators Terry Aulich, Tas., A.L.P. Michael Baume, N.S.W., L.P. The Hon. Peter Baume, N.S.W., L.P. John Black, Qld, A.L.P. David Brownhill, N.S.W., N.P.A. The Hon. John Button (Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce), Vic., A.L.P. The Hon. Sir John Carrick, K.C.M.G., N.S.W., L.P. The Hon. Frederick Chaney (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate), W.A., L.P. The Hon. Donald Chipp (Leader of the Australian Democrats), Vic., A.D. Stanley Collard (Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate), Qld, N.P.A. Noel Crichton-Browne, W.A., L.P. The Hon. Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Vic., L.P. The Hon. Don Grimes, Minister for Community Services, Tas., A.L.P. Janine Haines, S.A., A.D. David Hamer, D.S.C. (Deputy President and Chairman of Committees), Vic., L.P. Robert Hill, S.A., L.P. Bernard Kilgariff (Opposition Whip), N.T., L.P. James McKiernan, W.A., A.L.P. Michael Macklin, Qld, A.D. Colin Mason, N.S.W., A.D. Tony Messner, S.A., L.P. John Morris, N.S.W., A.L.P. Warwick Parer, Qld, L.P. Christopher Puplick, N.S.W., L.P. Robert Ray, Vic., A.L.P. Margaret Reid, A.C.T., L.P. Edward Robertson, N.T., A.L.P. Norman Sanders, Tas., A.D. James Short, Vic., L.P. Kerry Sibraa, N.S.W., A.L.P. John Siddons, Vic., A.D. Baden Teague, S.A., L.P. Josephine Vallentine, W.A., Ind. Amanda Vanstone, S.A., L.P. David Vigor, S.A., A.D. Shirley Walters, Tas., L.P. John Watson, Tas., L.P. Members, House of Representatives Kenneth Aldred, Vic., L.P. John Andrew, S.A., L.P. Peter Baldwin, N.S.W., A.L.P. Gordon Bilney, S.A., A.L.P. Cecil Blanchard, W.A., A.L.P. Charles Blunt, N.S.W., N.P. The Hon. Lionel Bowen, Deputy Prime Minister (Attorney-General), N.S.W., A.L.P. Raymond Braithwaite, Qld, N.P. The Hon. Neil Brown, Q.C., Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Vic., L.P. John Brumby, Vic., A.L.P. Maxwell Burr, Tas, L.P. Alan Cadman, N.S.W., L.P. Donald Cameron, Qld, L.P. Ian Cameron, Qld, N.P. Graeme Campbell, W.A., A.L.P. The Hon. James Carlton, N.S.W., L.P. David Charles, Vic., A.L.P. Dr Richard Charlesworth, W.A., A.L.P. Robert Chynoweth, Vic., A.L.P. Peter Cleeland, Vic., A.L.P. Michael Cobb, N.S.W., N.P. The Hon. Barry Cohen, Minister for Arts, Heritage & Environment, N.S.W., A.L.P. Peter Coleman, N.S.W., L.P. Bruce Cowan, N.S.W., N.P. The Hon. James Dobie, N.S.W., L.P. Alexander Downer, S.A., L.P. The Hon. Peter Duncan, S.A., A.L.P. Dr. Harry Edwards, N.S.W., L.P. Ronald Edwards, W.A., A.L.P. The Hon. Paul Everingham, N.T., L.P. The Hon. Wallace Fife, N.S.W., L.P. Timothy Fischer, N.S.W., N.P. Eric Fitzgibbon, N.S.W., A.L.P. Edward Grace, N.S.W., A.L.P. Alan Griffiths, Vic., A.L.P. Noel Hicks, N.S.W., N.P. The Hon. Michael Hodgman, Q.C., Tas., L.P. The Hon. Clyde Holding, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Vic., A.L.P. Colin Hollis, N.S.W., A.L.P. Benjamin Humphreys, Qld, A.L.P. The Hon. Ralph Hunt, Deputy Leader of the National Party, N.S.W., N.P. Ralph Jacobi, S.A., A.L.P. David Jull, Qld, L.P. Roslyn Kelly, A.C.T., A.L.P. Leonard Keogh, Qld, A.L.P. Anthony Lamb, Vic., A.L.P. John Langmore, A.C.T., A.L.P. Michael Lee, N.S.W., A.L.P. Bruce Lloyd, Vic., N.P. Jeannette McHugh, N.S.W., A.L.P. The Hon. Michael Mackellar, N.S.W., L.P. The Hon. Thomas McVeigh, Qld, N.P. The Hon. Ian Macphee, Vic., L.P. Michael Maher, N.S.W., A.L.P. Stephen Martin, N.S.W., A.L.P. Helen Mayer, Vic., A.L.P. John Mildren, Vic., A.L.P. Chris Miles, Tas., L.P. Clarence Millar, Qld, N.P. Allan Morris, N.S.W., A.L.P. Lloyd O'Neill, S.A., A.L.P. The Hon. Andrew Peacock, Vic., L.P. James Porter, S.A., L.P. Roger Price, N.S.W., A.L.P. Gary Punch, N.S.W., A.L.P. The Hon. Ian Robinson, N.S.W., N.P. Allan Rocher, W.A., L.P. Philip Ruddock, N.S.W., L.P. John Scott, S.A., A.L.P. Peter Shack, W.A., L.P. Roger Shipton, Vic., L.P. David Simmons, N.S.W., A.L.P. The Rt. Hon. Ian Sinclair, Leader of the National Party, N.S.W., N.P. Peter Slipper, Qld, N.P. James Snow, N.S.W., A.L.P. John Spender, N.S.W., L.P. Peter Staples, Vic., A.L.P. Kathryn Sullivan, Qld, L.P. Robert Tickner, N.S.W., A.L.P. David Watson, Qld, L.P. Alasdair Webster, N.S.W., L.P. Peter White, M.C., Qld, L.P. Keith Wright, Qld, A.L.P. Senator HILL —It is a matter of great regret to us that the Soviet Embassy officials refused even to accept the petition of the parliamentarians of the Australian Parliament. The explanation given to us was that they disputed the contents of the petition which I have just read. Whilst that might seem to us to be somewhat offensive, obviously the allegations that are the basis of that petition are a matter of much greater importance. These include the allegation that some 400,000 Jews in the Soviet Union are seeking to emigrate from the country unsuccessfully. They have been sent the notarised invitations from relatives in Israel which are a prerequisite to emigration; but, notwithstanding their having met those formal requirements, they still have not been given permission to leave the Soviet Union. There are allegations that there are no Jewish schools or Jewish organisations in the Soviet Union, and that no books in the Hebrew language and virtually no books in any language on Jewish history and culture are published in that country. There is also the allegation that the Soviet internal passport, or identity card, has a special column for nationality. A Jew is recognised as such and must declare his nationality as Jewish. But that fact then restricts him throughout his childhood when applying to be admitted to university and when applying as an adult for employment posts. These most disturbing allegations have, of course, received extensive corroboration over a long period and cause Australian parliamentarians grave concern. Therefore, I use this forum to put on the public record the petition of Australian parliamentarians in calling upon the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to permit members of the Jewish community within that country the freedom to practise their religion free of persecution and discrimination and the freedom to be reunited with their families and people in Israel. I thank the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement on the same subject. Leave granted. Senator MACKLIN —On behalf of my colleagues I wish to associate myself with the comments just made by Senator Hill in company with those of Mr Alan Griffiths from the other place representing the Australian Labor Party. We attempted to present to the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics this petition that Senator Hill has put into the record. It is rather extraordinary that an embassy in this country refused to accept a petition signed by 120 parliamentarians from the Senate and the House of Representatives. It displays, at least to me, the attitude that the USSR often takes to matters of basic human rights. Of course, that country is not alone in the denial of human rights to many of its citizens. It is a matter of some pride that this Parliament has such an active and bipartisan approach to these matters of human rights in all countries. On behalf of my colleagues, all of whom signed this petition, I say that we deplore the attitude taken by the USSR Embassy here in Australia in not accepting this petition. But we deplore even more its attitude to the basic human rights of its citizens and to the denial of the rights of any individuals to live where they will in the world and to follow any religion that they so choose. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a very short statement on the same subject. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —I wish to be associated with that petition. I am unable to understand why my name is not on it but I shall do my best to get my name on it. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania) —Mr President, I also seek leave to make a very short statement. Leave granted. Senator NEWMAN —As a very new senator to this place, I did not have the opportunity to have my name on that list, but I wish to be associated with the sentiments already expressed. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 5 May, from Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for a more flexible system of wage fixing and a more co-operative approach to work practices.' Yours sincerely FRED CHANEY Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.18) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for a more flexible system of wage fixing and a more co-operative approach to work practices. I bring that subject forward as a matter of urgency because it is a matter which goes to the standard of living of every Australian. I bring it forward now because there are some heartening signs that the view which has been expressed for some years on this matter by the Opposition is becoming a view with much wider support. I certainly understand from my discussions last week with Senator Siddons that the broad concept of a more flexible work force is supported by the Australian Democrats. It was encouraging to hear the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, last week say something similar. The need for a more flexible work force relates to our need to make changes in Australia that will help us to become a modern competitive economy. If we do not become a modern competitive economy, the difficulties that we are suffering at the moment will become worse and we will see the gradual decline of Australian living standards. I really want to bring forward this debate not to emphasise points of division but rather to emphasise points of common ground which exist in this area. I do that because I believe that if we are to change attitudes-many Government members have been prepared to say that what we need in Australia if we are to get over our economic problems is attitudinal change-as far as possible we have to say things in common so that the community will understand that this is not a matter of politics but a matter of survival. The simple fact is that we need to be more productive if we are to reduce unemployment and to be better off in Australia. One of the common views of most Australian people is that that this country ought to be able to offer us all the opportunities to have increasing standards of living. The simple fact is that we will not get those increased standards of living unless we have a more productive economy. I will touch later in my speech on the very useful and high profile example we were given last year in the Mudginberri dispute, which revolved around the resistance to the employer and employees at that abattoir agreeing to approach their work on a basis which would increase both productivity for the employer and income for the employees. Mudginberri stands as a very important example because it indicates that there are both institutional interests and attitudinal interests which really go against economic efficiency. Why was it that an employer and a group of employees who simply wanted to be more efficient, to increase their incomes and to become more productive had to go through the travail they went through at Mudginberri of pickets, applications to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, applications to the courts and very protracted and expensive legal proceedings? The sad fact is that a great deal of the debate on this issue is obscured by political point-scoring. It is the view of the Opposition that, if we could move away from that and move to a point where we can start to address the real needs of the community and examine what needs to be done in work places around Australia, we would have some chance of meeting the challenges we have at present and getting over the difficulties we have with our balance of payments and in many other areas. It is important that we get public recognition and acceptance of the need for change. We need public recognition of the fact that many of our problems are attitudinal and we need a common effort to change attitudes. I do not intend in this debate to address the question of straight-out industrial disputes. I think most Australians would accept that the sort of strike action we have seen recently, which has held back some $150m worth of exports of coal at a time when we have a balance of payments crisis, is absolutely absurd and against the national interest. I do not want to tackle that issue in any detail, although I must acknowledge it as a very substantial problem. I suppose that anybody who has travelled by air in Australia in the last week-most honourable senators would be in that category-would agree that the inefficiencies and additional costs incurred by industrial action in the airline industry over that period are scarcely what we need if we are to have a more competitive economy. We will not solve our problems if we maintain many of the attitudes of the past. The encouraging thing is that around Australia, from a whole series of different sources, we see the beginnings of an acknowledgement of the need for change. We see the beginnings of a new public awareness of the problem. I think that is easily understood because of the publicity which has been given to the external deficit, which is a serious difficulty for Australia, and the publicity which has been given to the value of our dollar since the Government, in action supported by us, floated it. The Government predicted a current account deficit of around $10.8 billion. That is a very high figure, but the worrying feature of the external deficit is that we had reached the figure of $10.4 billion by March. In other words, with three-quarters of the year passed, we had already almost got to the point of the external deficit which was predicted for the whole year in the Budget only last August. Quite clearly there is a broad public understanding that something is wrong. Most of the people of Australia realise that we are buying from the world much more than we sell to the world. Most people have the sense to realise that we cannot keep that up without running into difficulty. We certainly cannot keep that up without substantially increasing our external debt and putting our country substantially at risk in the future. The floating of the dollar has again been a very high profile element of the Government's economic management. I think most Australians are aware that there has been a very substantial drop in our dollar, and they understand that that is something which will reduce our standard of living because the very many goods we import are going to be much more expensive for us, and the goods we sell are, of course, not appreciating in any real value. So there is a loss to Australian consumers. I put the view on behalf of the Opposition that understanding that there are problems is the first step in finding solutions. The symptoms of our uncompetitiveness are many. I have already mentioned the balance of payments and the fact that month by month we find that again we have sold very much less than we have had to buy. Figures of around, or in excess of $1 billion a month have become part of our monthly reading. I suppose the most sobering set of figures is that of our performance as an exporting country. In 1953 this country with a small population was the eighth largest exporting country in the world. In 1983 we had slipped to twenty-third. In absolute terms, in 1953 we produced 2.6 per cent of the world's exports; by 1983 we produced only 1.2 per cent of the world's exports-the largest fall experienced in any so-called modern economy. The ratio of exports to our general gross domestic product has declined from 20 per cent in 1953 to less than 13 per cent in 1983-84. So as a trading nation our position has very substantially diminished. The most serious aspect of that problem is that our export of manufactures has diminished. We have had a particularly poor performance in that area, whereas on any comparative basis-in primary industry and in mining-we have done reasonably well. We have a slipping share of trade in those areas which involve the use of a large amount of labour and high value-added costs. Our exports of manufactured goods constitute only about 18 per cent of our total exports; that is a slipping figure. Only a couple of years ago it was 22 per cent of our total exports. the figure is going steadily downwards. Yet in the industrialised countries with which we normally compare ourselves we find that 75 per cent of their exports are in manufactured goods. World wide export trade is 60 per cent manufactured goods. We think of ourselves as a sophisticated country, yet in Brazil the figure is 39 per cent and in Argentina, 24 per cent. Australia is only 18 per cent. In other words, a tiny part of our exports are in manufactured goods. If we compare ourselves with a European country such as Spain, which is not seen as one of the mighty industrialised countries of Europe, we find that it is producing 71 per cent of exports in the manufactured goods field. The importance to us, and the reason why I have lingered on those figures a little, is that world trade is going up and up in manufactured goods; it is not going up and up in the exports we predominantly have. That is a very dangerous situation in the long term for Australia and it points to the fact that we must do something about our manufacturing industry. It points up the common view of both the Government and the Opposition, and I am sure the Australian Democrats, that we must have manufacturing industries which are growing, which are outward looking, and which are internationally competitive. To complete the symptoms of our malaise, we have interest rates which are currently the highest real interest rates in the industrialised world; we have consumer price rises which are several times higher than those of our competitors; and our inflation rate is now at about 9.2 per cent on an annual basis compared with 3.2 per cent for the United States, 2.4 per cent for Japan, 0.9 per cent for Switzerland, 0.1 per cent for Germany, and 5.1 per cent for the United Kingdom. Our comparative position is slipping. Our inflation rate is far higher than that of our trading competitors. Whilst our dollar has recovered slightly against the American dollar, if we look at the whole basket of currencies against which we trade we find that our dollar is worth about 10 per cent less than the value forecast in the Budget only last August. All of that is central to the concerns that we are expressing about the lack of flexibility in our labour market. I mention Mudginberri as an example of an attempt by an employer and employees to achieve higher productivity and hence to do something towards solving that problem. We need to get that sort of attempt at every work place in Australia, but instead of that what we have is a system which is quite inflexible with respect to wage fixing and which also tends to be quite inflexible with respect to non-wage benefits and to be very inflexible with respect to the way people work within a work place. It tends to lead to demarcation disputes instead of the sort of co-operative common approach to the job which is required if we are to improve our situation. Within the present system there is little or no incentive for a co-operative approach between employers and employees and, in fact, the present system lends itself to destroying that sense of common purpose. There is no doubt that that problem is contributed to by the trade union movement. It is often also contributed to by management, which fails to encourage the positive attitudes on the part of the work force and to work with its work force in a way that will encourage the development of common attitudes. We see a need for change. We see it at the institutional level as well as at the attitudinal level. The inflexibility we have in our labour market is, in fact, the major impediment to the international competitiveness of our economy. Labour costs are the major cost item and there is a direct impediment to the growth of our economy. We are seeking more flexibility in the interests of developing less of the `them and us' attitude and more of the common purpose. In that sense, the Opposition welcomes the sort of comment that was made by Senator Button last week both in the Senate and in the media. I quote what he said on the Schildberger radio program on Wednesday, 30 April: Whether it's at that end of the scale in respect of small businesses, or whether it is in respect of the accord generally, I think anybody who thinks about it recognises that gradually we have to free up some of the provisions of the accord. I see that as a necessary development into the future, and I think a lot of other Ministers do too, and I think the ACTU would. That is not a matter on which the Opposition seeks to score a point. That is simply a matter on which we say it is fundamentally important that it should not be just the Opposition which is putting out this message; it is important that the Government is also prepared to acknowledge that aspect of the changes that are needed in Australia, as indeed changes in so many other areas are needed. We think it is important that it should also be acknowledged by trade unionists, and I will come back to that in a moment. This debate takes place in the context of a week in which we expect that the industrial relations policy of the Opposition will become public. Within the next week or so that document will be released. That document will need to be looked at in the context of this need for fundamental change. It represents our contribution to thinking at this time to the institutional changes that can be made to produce more positive attitudes amongst both employers and employees and which will raise the productivity of this country. What is released in that document later this week will be the continuance of a debate which the Opposition has promoted over a very long period and which in particular has been promoted by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. John Howard has long held the view that tackling this area and getting greater flexibility into the system is a very important aspect of getting a better deal for Australia. I do not wish in this debate-indeed I do not have time in this debate-to quote at great length what he has had to say, but let me quote a couple of comments he made the Monday before last at the annual dinner of the Australian Finance Conference here in Canberra. I take just a couple of paragraphs from that speech. He said: This inflexible, centralised Accord approach ignores the fact that national wealth and national productivity is the sum total of the wealth generated by, and the productivity of, individual enterprises and that unless the right climate for wealth generation and productivity improvement is produced at an individual business or enterprise level, then the cake will not get larger. A little later he said: The system also robs too many entrepreneurs and their employees of the capacity to make sensible workplace decisions about how their businesses should be run, how their workers should be remunerated and how their productivity can be lifted. The great risk, of course, is that this debate is diverted off into a sterile argument about some detail of policy instead of concentrating on the basic need that this country has for a more flexible and more productive economic system. In the time that remains to me I would like to make some reference to what I think is a quite notable contribution to this debate by Mr Charlie Fitzgibbon in a paper which was delivered in February 1986 but which has seen the light of day only more recently. I commend that paper for a detailed reading by people who are concerned about the economic future of this country, not because I agree with every word that Mr Fitzgibbon has had to say but because I think he has made a very important contribution to thinking and he has indicated that important elements of even the trade union movement are prepared to face these changes. I quote from paragraph 34 of that speech, where he referred to the problems of Australian manufacturing industry and, having put aside the idea of simply controlling imports to solve our problems, he said: If you attempt to control the imports you may do so by protective means and that protective means can fuel the whole cycle of inefficient industry in competition with outside industry unless there is some new thinking in respect of the mode that we adopt to ensure efficient relationship, one part of the economy to the other. A little later, he said: To anybody who wants to think in general about the situation, the developments automatically answer the question as to whether or not industrial relations can stand aloof from all the other forces shaping economics. They cannot stand aloof and there must be an understanding that as a society we are not any longer in competition with like societies. Mr Fitzgibbon there acknowledged the fact that we are now competing on a thoroughly different basis and, therefore, we have to change our thinking. He said specifically in paragraph 50: . . . what is required is to change the thinking of people by exposing more and more groups to the advantages inherent in a change of thinking. In other words, it is necessary to keep educating portions of the community to an understanding of the advantages of the material gains inherent in a more co-operative productive society. Mr Fitzgibbon certainly addressed himself in those rather general terms to the problem, but he went on to deal with some of the more detailed points which tend to give rise to what I would describe as a divisive and unthinking debate rather than an attempt to come to grips with the problem. He referred, for example, in paragraph 76 to the harm that can be done in certain areas by a rigid concept of comparative wage justice. Of course, in fairness to him, he defended the application of that principle in many circumstances but he pointed out there are circumstances where it can be destructive to apply it. I think that is a very important point. He pointed out that that is something that needs consideration and he talked about the fact that, if one has a system which is so rigid as to prevent a reward for special endeavour, that will inevitably mean that there is no special endeavour. To sum up what I see those comments meaning, what Mr Fitzgibbon said is that if we want this economy to be more productive certainly we must make sure that there are genuine incentives for people to try harder and to be more productive. Since my time has expired, I must close this speech and simply say to the Senate that I hope there will be a positive and constructive attitude to achieving change in this vital area for Australia. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(3.39) —We have just heard a 20-minute speech by Senator Chaney on an urgency motion by the Liberal Party of Australia calling for greater flexibility and co-operation in the work place. The first half of the speech concentrated on taking us through a tour of the trade statistics, a tour I have no difference with in terms of the statistics elicited and the facts brought out. In fact, many of the things in the first half of his speech were truisms and I am pleased to see that they are recognised. The issue is not about what is the state of the economy and what the problems of the economy are; the issue is how one solves those problems. The Liberal Party has chosen soon to showcase its industrial relations policy. This debate today can be fairly said to be the first shot in the program of showcasing that policy. In the course of his remarks Senator Chaney lamented in passing two disputes that were current within recent weeks in Australia. I want to caution very strongly about that use of statistics because it ignores the fact that industrial dispute levels in this country are at levels known to us only two or so decades ago. There will always be a dispute of one type or another. To select those disputes to try to pretend that the picture is serious is a misrepresentation of the statistics. One is concerned about export industries. Senator Chaney mentioned coal. Against the unfortunate example of coal I put the very fortunate example of the iron ore industry, which is critical to our export income, an industry which has been working under the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party accord on a consultative council basis to try to identify and reconcile problems in that industry before they become disputatious. The record of that industry was notorious under the Liberal Government. The industry was more disputatious than almost any other. It was well and truly above the general level of industrial dispute statistics. It is now well and truly below that level. That is a living example of how a Labor government, working through the prices and incomes accord, can bring greater flexibility to the work place and achieve greater harmony and thus greater productivity. Senator Chaney dwelt on the fact that productivity breeds living standards. We have never denied that. We are pursuing it under our policies. As I said, this matter of urgency attempts to showcase the central plank of what we will soon see to be the Liberal Party's industrial relations policy. Under the Howard leadership of the Liberal Party, we have waited 10 months to receive it. Mr Howard hung his hat on the policy as being his critical area for change. It comes out at a time when Mr Howard's leadership is very much on the line, when he is approaching single digit popularity in the polls. No doubt the Liberal Party is concerned to market the policy very strongly. Unfortunately, Mr Howard is being quoted as saying that some of the aspects of his policy will bring five years of industrial chaos. Also unfortunately, he has been quoted as calling for a thousand Mudginberris-a disputatious and dislocative dispute in the Northern Territory. If they be the costs of that policy, the Australian community has the record of this Government to stand against that chaos and disputation, a record of harmony and achievement. Without striking another blow in this debate, the case is ended. We have been waiting patiently for the last three years and two months, since we took the treasury bench, for the Liberal Party to produce an industrial relations policy. We have been through the period in which, under the Opposition's Peacock administration, the Macphee-led wets or pragmatists fought the Howard dries. We are now in the dry or arid phase under Howard. It has taken about 10 months for the jewel in Liberal Party economic policy, its industrial relations policy, to be given birth. It has been a difficult birth, too, because on 18 February Mr David Trebeck of the Liberal Party issued a confidential memo to Mr N. A. Brown and Mr Howard, calling for a way for the policy to be marketed. While this document is the property of the House of Representatives, I will go to some aspects of it. It set out a script as to how the policy should be sown in advance with a number of key people and it set out, in a crass and arrogant way, how some people needed to be neutralised and how Brian Noakes, the leader of the Confederation of Australian Industry, should be bypassed and undermined. As this policy's marketing continues, we will see how well the script and the cast as selected by Mr Trebeck perform according to their assigned roles; whether businessmen who are potential supporters come out in the way they are scripted by Mr Trebeck and whether Mr Trebeck succeeds in his initiative to neutralise Bill Dix, Sir Peter Abeles, Brian Loton, Chuck Chapman, John Utz and Brian Kelman. We note in the script for selling this policy that eight journalists are indicated to be supporters and 17 need to be neutralised or are opposers. Perhaps the Liberal Party has launched this matter of urgency on the basis that the Press is already against it according to the Party's internal documentation. Let us turn to the principle of flexibility that is under debate. One ought to commence a discussion on flexibility in the wage area by going to the position that exists, so that we do not debate an illusion. All too often in industrial relations-an area in which the Liberal Party regards itself as being at war with the unions-terms are misused as if this were a real war. Terms are given which do not describe what happens. Flexibility in the wage area applies now. If the Liberal Party strategists in preparing their policy cared to consult industrial law and lore, they would know that the overwhelming number of awards in Australia are minimum rate awards-there are very few paid rate awards-which constrain employers to pay a minimum amount and no less. Employers are not constrained not to pay more if they choose. Under the accord, unions have given a voluntary commitment before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission not to make extra claims. No claims are being made in the work place beyond wage indexation, but employers have given no such commitment. Employers have infinite upward flexibility on wages. Concerning flexibility, what applies in law and the real situation before the Arbitration Commission is that flexibility which rests with the employers. If it is to be argued that there should be downward flexibility, somebody should produce an argument why an independent arbitrator, with distinguished service in industrial relations, hearing a case from employers and unions and interested third parties who have been granted leave to appear, and making a decision based on justice, equity and the substantial merits of the case presented, should have that decision departed from simply because it might suit Liberal Party demonology. That case has never been put, but it is what really happens now. Until that case is rebutted it cannot be strongly argued with any rationality that a case has been put that is convincing. There is a tendency to mutilate some of the languages in industrial relations. We have heard, not on this occasion-I respect Senator Chaney for this-but on past occasions, and doubtless we will hear in the future, about unjustified or large wage claims. In this whole debate about industrial relations, the things focused on are the unjustified claims that are alleged by the Opposition. Of course, the Opposition knows that under the mechanistic procedures of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, unions file ambit claims which, by their very nature, are not the claims which the unions are seeking to have met. This shallow and misrepresenting focus on ambit claims being regarded as if they were genuine claims is the sort of lexicon of the labour debate on which the Opposition focuses. I trust that in this new-found search for a more deliberate and intelligent dialogue, those phrases will no longer apply. The assumption underlying all that Senator Chaney said in his speech was that there would be downward flexibility. I counsel him that were his ideas picked up the result that he seeks to achieve may not be achieved. Senator Chaney seems to think that it would be unlikely for there to be any upward flexibility if negotiations were left to small units in the work place. I can think of a number of small or medium businesses in which, if the no claims commitment were removed from unions, there would be an immediate rash of wage claims. The lid would be off the accord and there would be immediate upward flexibility. In those types of enterprises, the shortage of skilled labour is crippling. They would simply bid up the price of that skilled labour as a market rate rather than as an award rate to try to attract more skilled labour. Upward flexibility would dominate. A wages pattern would be set up which would create a reverse form of flow-on. Unlike in the last year of the Liberal Government, we still have strong and vibrant economic growth. The economy has performed year after year with 5 per cent economic growth. We are performing at that level now. Because of the massive increase in jobs available to the community, in some key areas, shortages of labour occur. If, at this stage of our economic growth phase, the lid was taken off extra claims and flexibility was given, it is very possible that we would have a wages explosion reminiscent of the Fraser years as the relativities were dragged out backwards through those areas where flexibility was conceded. I put it to members of the Liberal Party of Australia that, if they are serious about looking for a general level of costs in industry that can be contained in wages, their own theory may well skewer them on the pinnacle of experience. It may just be that it will turn out to be totally counterproductive. It is important to state that the accord has removed from industry the element of indecision and uncertainty. In industrial relations the greatest cause of disputes and disharmony is people not being able to predict whether their income levels will remain stable in real terms, fall, or do something else. The accord has assured all Australians in the work force-all those 6.5 million people who earn their living by working in this country-that the real purchasing power of their wages will remain stable, will increase over time, and that the social wage, in the form of Medicare as we gave it last year and in the form of other services and goods provided by government, will also increase so that their living standards, and not just their wages, will rise. It is our conviction that people are concerned about living standards, not a paper chase after money wages, which is illusory. The accord delivers the real value of living standards and not the illusion of paper wages. Coming back to the debate on flexibility it ought to be conceded, if this debate is to have any credibility, that there is considerable flexibility in the wage fixing structure now. Without the flexibility that I refer to it would not have been possible for the cost of Medicare to be discounted from the consumer price index. Without the flexibility that I refer to it would not have been possible to negotiate accord mark 2 to make possible a 2 per cent cut in the consumer price index for the devaluation effect. Had we freed up the labour market we would have to negotiate each claim case by case. In some cases we might succeed, in many we might lose, and we would not get the flexibility which provides a major instrument for government negotiation and an ability to adjust the general level of wages according to all other movements related to the social wage or the wider economy. It ought to be recognised in this debate too that there is flexibility before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in negotiating or arguing for anomalies and inequities where, under the work value principles, the nature of work changes. There is flexibility in those circumstances to appear before the Commission and make a case as to what is new and what is in need of flexibility. Senator Chaney resorted to the ploy of quotations in order to bolster his case. Let me follow his example. I think the main flaw in his argument is that he tended to overstate individual flexibility, when there is a basic recognition of general flexibility through the areas that I have referred to. I mention again Medicare, the 2 per cent discount for devaluation, and the ability to argue anomalies and inequities cases. On the subject of flexibility, let me go to the historic report of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems which was commissioned under this Government. This Committee, for the first time since Federation, carefully and calmly went through all the submissions from the industrial relations environment, economists and other commentators, and drew forth a report which picks up, I think, the essential character of change for Australian industrial relations. The Hancock Committee stated in its report that it did not believe that relativities were a sensitive signalling device. It said that this was because wage relativities do not respond readily to changes in the underlying conditions of demand and supply and that the allocation of labour is insensitive to change in relativities between the wage levels of major categories of labour. Honourable senators will agree that that is a fairly emphatic statement by the Hancock Committee after its detailed investigation. The assumption that Senator Chaney has made is that wages respond in the manner the Hancock findings say they do not. Not only the Hancock Committee holds that view. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has reached a similar conclusion. In its `Employment Outlook' for September 1985 the OECD said: While one would expect a flexible wage structure to aid labour market adjustment it is not clear how important this is in practice. Even in a situation of a relatively inflexible industrial wage structure labour mobility may occur smoothly on the basis of expected life-time earnings and availability of job opportunities. Talking about Australia, the OECD said: In countries pursuing consensus policies to achieve aggregate wage moderation care is also needed to ensure that attempts to substantially increase relative wage flexibility do not comprise this goal. That is not the full extent of my quotations. The Business Council of Australia, an employer body, in a letter to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, said: Where shortages have emerged, wage flexibility and remuneration differentials are not a major contributing factor. Accordingly, there is little justification for `freeing-up' the system solely on the grounds of trying to alleviate shortages of labour in a relatively narrow range of specific occupations in particular areas. I cite, therefore, the Hancock Committee, the OECD and the Business Council of Australia as major authorities going against the thrust of what Senator Chaney has said. Senator Chaney also drew some comfort from Charlie Fitzgibbon's recent speech which has been sent to the Economic Planning Advisory Council and on which EPAC is currently working. I think it should be said, so that the record is balanced and so that there is no offence to my old mate and militant firebrand, Charlie Fitzgibbon, that when he was asked about Liberal Party claims concerning his speech he said, and I quote from the Age of Thursday, 27 March: It is absolute nonsense to say that . . . I have nothing but contempt for the Opposition's policy because it is designed to produce conflict in this country, which we need like a hole in the head. So said Charles Fitzgibbon, the central plank upon which Senator Chaney has based a lot of his argument. As I have a minute left, I should defend Senator Button because he was also quoted for comfort by Senator Chaney. In the Schildberger interview quoted by Senator Chaney-this was not quoted-Senator Button, in talking about wage flexibility, said: But let me say that possibility in my view has to be borne in mind and has to be thought about. It is being thought about. This Government has a flexible view about the future. It is not cast in granite with rigid policy objectives; the Government has a flexible view about how to achieve those objectives. Sure, we will look at flexibility but certainly in the circumstances of Australia today we will look at it in terms of ensuring that the economic growth we have been able to generate, the wages approach that we have been able successfully to implement, the low level of industrial dispute that has occurred under our leadership, the growth in the economy that has occurred under our leadership, the increase in productivity that has occurred under our leadership and the greater harmony in the workplace that has occurred under our leadership are continued. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(3.58) —We are debating the need for more flexibility in wage fixing in Australia. On this point, the Australian Democrats agree with the Liberal Opposition. I suspect, however, that that is probably the only point on which we can agree. I listened to Senator Chaney's speech with a great deal of interest. Essentially, it was a plea to find common ground in the area of industrial relations as to how we may free up our wage fixing policies in this country. As far as the Democrats are concerned, that plea will not go unheeded. We agree absolutely that, unless we find common ground and a way to have a more flexible wage fixing policy in this country, industry will never become efficient. It certainly will never become export orientated. It was a pity that Senator Chaney, in the course of his remarks, did not give us some details to get our teeth into. How do the Liberals propose to have a more flexible wage fixing policy? I realise that Senator Chaney is under some constraint because his Party's detailed policy has not yet been released. In that respect it is perhaps a pity that we are not debating this subject after the release rather than before. I can only surmise that two aspects of the Liberal Party's flexible wage approach will be of grave concern to the Democrats. In looking for flexibility we can do one of two things: We can hit the unions over the head-we can wish that they were not there-or we can try to get a flexible wage policy which does not embrace the trade union movement. If that is the Liberal approach it is doomed to failure. Whether we like it or not unions are a necessary part of the Australian system of conciliation and arbitration. It is written into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. We cannot fix wages without the involvement of the unions in our system of conciliation and arbitration. So to that degree unionism is a part of the Australian way of life. The Democrats' approach is this: Let us accept the fact that unionism is a part of our way of life. Let us attempt to get a new attitude by the unions; let us attempt to get co-operation rather than confrontation. Do not let us try to have collective agreements that seek to exclude the fact that the unions are around because if we do we will inevitably hit a brick wall, we will precipitate confrontation, and we cannot possibly hope to get co-operation. I hope that the Liberals' ideas of flexibility do not mean flexibility downwards as far as wages are concerned. Again I believe that that is an unrealistic approach. We cannot negotiate wages downwards while at the same time we have a centralised wage fixing system through the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which sets minimum wages and conditions. On that basis the two approaches are absolutely contradictory. I ask: Firstly, does the Liberal Party hope to exclude unions, and secondly, does the Liberal Party mean, when it talks about flexibility and presumably collective agreements, that it is hoping by that mechanism to push down wages? If it does, its policy is doomed to failure, in the Democrats' opinion. However, we believe that there is a place for collective agreements to be negotiated in this country within a legal framework that is binding on both parties, and, furthermore, we believe that this can be done in the context of the accord. Some months ago I introduced the Employee Participation Bill 1985 in the Senate. It is still awaiting debate. So far the Liberals have shown little interest in employees participation, judging from their reaction to the Bill that is before the Senate. Unless we attempt to get co-operation with unions and with the work force generally we will never get industry efficient and we will never get a better and more flexible approach to wage fixing. When I was first a senator from 1980 to 1983 I was a member of the now famous Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation under the chairmanship of Senator Harradine, whose opinions on industrial relations I almost entirely agree with. His chairmanship of that Committee was very efficient and very businesslike. We received submissions from most of the important unions in this country, from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and from the majority of employer organisations. Two matters became abundantly clear to me as the evidence from all the representatives of industrial relations in this country poured in. I believe that they were also apparent to other members of the Select Committee. Firstly, the 300-odd unions around the country value and respect their independence. In my view, there is no way we will ever get any meaningful amalgamation of the greater number of unions in this country. Certainly we will never get down to the German model, which has 16 or 17 trade unions. Union amalgamation as a fundamental reform in industrial relations in Australia is out. We have to accept as a fact of life that there are a lot of unions. The second matter that became abundantly clear to me during the Senate Industrial Relations Committee's work was that our system of conciliation and arbitration is so entrenched that it could not be disbanded without a revolution. We have to accept that we have conciliation and arbitration in this country, and it is so widespread and is woven so extensively through the fabric of our whole society that we have to accept it. The accord accepts the facts of life and to date it has been successful. What the Democrats would like to see is a Bill introduced into this Parliament which would allow direct bargaining and collective agreements to be voluntarily negotiated between unions and management-both parties wanting to negotiate-in selected areas. There are industries in which the two parties should get together to negotiate collective agreements on a broad range of issues, not just on wages and conditions. The mining industry would be a case in point, as well as industries that have large export contracts. Some small businesses could best negotiate agreements relating to their particular area of activity. Having said that, I do not want to give the impression that we could have widespread collective agreements that would generally replace our centralised wage fixing system and the accord. I believe that in specialised cases we could gradually introduce collective agreements into Australia and then let that process gather strength and be gradually phased in. However, those collective agreements will not be successful until we recognise two fundamental things: They have to be negotiated with the unions and they have to be negotiated on a broad range of issues. Certainly no attempt should be made to negotiate wages and conditions downwards because that would be in absolute contradiction of the accord and of our minimum wage setting practices. We could negotiate a period of three years peace in a specific industry; we could negotiate that wages should escalate in line with the consumer price index or some other index specifically for that industry and for the length of the contract. It is fundamental that the starting point for any negotiation has to be on above award conditions, not below them. Collective agreements that allow us to negotiate on a whole range of issues, including employee participation, offer a way to streamline Australia's industries through giving incentive to workers and management to restructure in terms favourable to both parties. By making over-award payments legally binding, collective agreements would avoid the instability and industrial unrest associated with over-award payments at the present time. On this basis there would be no reaction against collective agreements, as there has been in the past. The real advantage is that they allow negotiations on an extremely wide range of issues-not just industrial issues but all kinds of issues relating to the industry, for example, new equipment which could modernise the industry, security of employment, and all the other things involved in modernising and revitalising Australian industry. Industry has been hamstrung by inefficient work practices and by not keeping abreast of technological change. Flexibility is vital, but not just in the wages area. I am saying: Get the unions involved in updating work practices; get them involved in making industry more productive; get them involved in making the work place safer. They are the ones operating the equipment, the ones doing the work. Give them a say in how this new equipment should be installed and how it should work. If we can get this spirit of co-operation, Australian industry does have a hope of becoming efficient. I mentioned earlier that we have a great variety of unions in Australia. That is a fundamental fact of life. What are we going to do about it? In the collective agreements approach that we envisage we would embrace the concept of a chief negotiating union. We would suggest that the unions within a company should get together and form a panel to negotiate on an agreement. By that process alone we immediately would cut across demarcation disputes and the differing interests of particular unions in a particular company. We have also looked deeply into the legality surrounding collective agreements in Australia. I hope that the Liberal Party of Australia has looked at the legalities of what it proposes. There is little doubt in our minds that under the industrial power of the Constitution we could not find a safe base to establish a law for collective agreements. We believe that in the corporations power of the Constitution there is a safe base, and any new legislation to make agreements legally binding should be based on the corporations power. We have to start from the point that any agreement between unions, employees and management is not legally binding in this country at present; it cannot be made legally binding without a new legislative framework. So such negotiated agreements at present are not worth the paper they are written on. There is a great gap in Australia's industrial law. We say there should be a legal framework that would make such agreements legally binding, which could be enforceable in our civil courts and could be encouraged in certain industries right now with the idea of at least giving us a safety net in the event that the accord breaks down for any reason, as it will, on historical evidence, sooner or later. We should have legislation that allows us to get involved in more flexible direct negotiation in the work place. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(4.12) —This urgency debate on the need for a more flexible wage fixing policy and a more co-operative approach to work practices is basically about responsibility, rationale and reason. For too long Australia, because it has been living beyond its means, has been bolting down a path towards economic ruin. The Opposition does not have to tell Australians that; they can see it for themselves. We have an Australian dollar that is buying less and less on various world markets. We have an inflation rate of 9.2 per cent while Japan has a rate of 1.8 per cent, the United States of America 3.2 per cent and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries an average rate of 3.8 per cent. Australians can see that every month our balance of payments situation is deteriorating, that interest rates have jumped to unaffordable levels, and that, while lots of money and time is spent on Priority One campaigns and other public relations stunts, our unemployment level for youth is at an eight-month high of nearly 22 per cent-and we are told to expect a slow-down in employment growth this year. No wonder all Australians are worried. The Government's answer to this has been to claim the accord is leading and will lead this country out of its economic problems. We are constantly told that we have on the Government benches the best economic managers this country has seen in 50 years. Why, then, are we in such a mess? Why do we have businesses, large and small, closing every day, retrenching staff, and massive unemployment in small towns? Why do we have a rural sector that last year and this has taken to the streets to protest? Why is it, if we have the accord and the so-called best economic managers this country has known, that we are in such a mess? I get very worried about the economic abilities of this Government when I read comments such as that made recently by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), when he talked about the demonstrable success of the Government's wages policy. How can he make those claims in light of such disputes as that at Mudginberri and when almost weekly we have coal, wheat or live sheep held up at the wharves because of union demands? Australia's wage fixing policies are simply a reflection of how far the unions are able to push their demands, and the accord has solved nothing. Charles Copeman, Chief Executive of Peko-Wallsend Ltd, said recently that Australia's wage fixing system was at the heart of Australia's malaise, and he claims that unions are not playing their part, either. He says that the worst answers he has had to the question of how to meet rising wage costs when the price of the commodity is falling has come from union bosses, who he claims say they would rather have a mine shut down than have the employer hold the line on wage demands. Look at what is happening out at Broken Hill at the moment. We read about it in the paper this morning. The company that owns the mine says that it will lose $40m this year and it is asking for new work practices to save the mine and save the jobs of some 1,500 employees. Surely there should be a more co-operative approach to the work practices adhered to by the unions to save their jobs and those of their fellow men. Spalvins, from the Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd, has called the accord `the iron hand of union power which can be exercised with virtual impunity whenever unions choose to do so'. Union power, or the irresponsible use of it, has led to situations such as that on the Port Adelaide waterfront, where the cost of cleaning four holds of a ship leaving Adelaide to load sugar in Fiji was $8,100, for 80 minutes work. The union claimed that 24 painters and dockers were needed, at a rate of $4.20 per minute per man, to do the work. The situation is apparently no better at Fremantle, where the 32 workers are paid $11 an hour when they are working, which is about half the time. The Fremantle Port Authority last year collected $324,000 from ships using the port to pay the workers for when they were not working. Divided among the 32 workers, that works out at about $10.13 an hour. So we have an absurd situation, with people being paid $11 an hour when they are working and almost as much when they are not working. Is it any wonder that our produce is too expensive for the world market? The waterfront is by no means the only industry where absurd wage structures and demands apply. In the restaurant and tourist industries we have penalty rates which do not lead to more employment and more prosperous business. It has led to less staff providing a poorer service, and therefore harder working conditions. The same situation occurs in the rural sector in a great variety of jobs. We have long gone beyond considering the question of the ability of an industry to pay. If ever the more militant unions took that into consideration, it is very evident they no longer do so. It would seem the time is overdue for common sense to prevail in the argument about wages in this country. Two quotes are of relevance here. The first is a probably predictable response from a man who has been more on the employer than employee side of business. He says: What we all need to realise is that increased wages can only be paid when the total size of the economic cake is increased. Increased output and improved productivity, based on the capacity of individual business and industries to pay, are the only real bases on which wage increases can be granted without creating increased inflation and increased unemployment. That statement is from John Leard. The second quote is as follows: The need for change to the industrial relations norms of earlier periods has been recognised by some in important positions of influence. That understanding has been followed by a recognition that a grab by trade unions now for a bigger slice of the economic cake could destroy opportunities for growth because this would result in self defeating inflation and lost competitiveness . . . it is accepted by realists that unless movements in labour costs are in line with economic capacity and growth in productivity the result will be to the detriment of organised labour and Australians generally . . . Australia could still be in a favourable position if it could be a secure supplier. Unfortunately it has not been able to develop this reputation because of the operation of a conflict society. The problem for Australia is not that there is some conflict . . . it is that there is too much . . . That statement was made by Charlie Fitzgibbon, of whom Mr Kelty said: He's not theoretical . . . a very practical person, but he is always thinking about the future, never the past. He is truly a man of vision. He is singularly the most impressive union official I have ever dealt with. The Confederation of Australian Industry has made the following comment: It is a sad indictment on the position in industrial relations where the trade union movement presents the industrial tribunal with only two choices-acquiescence or economic chaos. It has claimed that the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions use the accord as a loaded gun put straight to the head of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Confederation warns that if the 3 per cent productivity rise is paid, we will be heading clearly down a path of recession. Senator McKiernan —Doom and gloom again. You have said the same thing many times. Senator BROWNHILL —Senator McKiernan causes enough problems out in the community. He should not come in here and cause more problems. So today influential businessmen are saying that we cannot afford to keep the wages structure that we have, the largest association of businesses is saying that we cannot afford the wages structure we have, and now we have a trade union leader saying we cannot afford that wage structure. Even the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) is now suggesting some flexibility in the wage structure. So when will the Government start to listen to the rest of Australia and realise what apparently almost everyone else in the community realised long ago? The present inflexible, rigidly controlled system of wage determination is inappropriate, inadequate and totally detrimental to a future healthy economy. A relaxation of the wages structure would have a far-reaching benefit for a number of industries. The small business and farm sectors would then be given an opportunity to be removed from the strictures of centralised regulations and to permit enterprise-based employment contracts to emerge. This would provide greater employment opportunities for young people; it would allow small businesses and farmers to employ and train more people. Would it not be better to have young people on voluntary contracts in the work force than on the unemployed scrapheap? This would be an important step along the road to developing what is called the share economy. This is productivity-enhancing because the employee shares in the purpose of the business and hence also in its rewards. At present there appears to be no understanding of business by the trade unions. How absurd it is to have in the metals industry, for example, an increase in the award last April of 2.6 per cent, 3.8 per cent in October, 2.3 per cent now, and a 3 per cent productivity claim. These increases naturally flow on and affect primary industry, for example, which cannot afford them at this stage. In recent months primary industry has had to suffer falling prices for its commodities as well as rising costs for machinery and hired labour, not to mention interest rates, fertiliser costs and so on. So the cost of machinery goes up, and the ability of the purchaser to pay goes down. That results in reductions in machinery sales staff, and ultimately a drop in the number of machines produced and the number of people producing them-the people Labor senators say they are protecting. Voluntary wage agreements can work if they are allowed to. In the much-quoted Mudginberri dispute there was agreement between the employer and the employees involved to work for a price and a contract that suited them both. It was the union that objected-and why? The contract-the arrangement-was worked out to the satisfaction of both parties, neither side felt it was disadvantaged, and the arrangement was effected within an existing award. It would seem that the time is overdue in this country for common sense to prevail in the argument about wages. Earlier today in Question Time the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) used the most insidious of all answers to the arguments against a centralised wages system. He said that if we free up the wages system, we will have a wages break-out similar to that which followed the abandonment of wage indexation in 1981. Yet quite recently the ACTU took responsibility for that particular blow to the Australian economy. Now surely when we talk about responsibility and rationale it must come not only from employers but also the trade unions and the Government, not the least of which is the Minister for Finance. Are we to be stuck forever with this appalling wages system that is killing incentive and productivity simply because if it changes the unions will run riot? I suggest that, if those in the trade union movement wish to be treated like adults and paid like adults, perhaps they should behave like adults and not like standover men. I hope that the words of Charlie Fitzgibbon indicate the realistic approach the unions are beginning to take. They are not apart from this community. One does not have to look too far at too many industries to see the problems that are occurring. One does not have to talk to too many young people to realise that all they ask is for a chance to gain experience and to work. The system we have at the moment does not allow incentive or flexibility. Within the present system there is little responsibility and little rationale. Without them, Australia's future is not particularly promising. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(4.27) —The proposition put forward by the Opposition entails a curious contradiction-curious because, with this Opposition, the contradictions generally appear further down the page. However, today we have the statement: The need for a more flexible system of wage fixing and a more co-operative approach to work practices. This is a rather naive way of wanting one's cake and eating it as well. Opposition members want a more flexible system and a more co-operative approach to work practices. Put more concisely, they are dishing up to us the following: They want lower wages and they want the workers not only to be happy about that but also to co-operate in the whole process. Opposition members want happy workers experiencing significant wage cuts. Moreover, they even seem serious about this process. We need to look at the implications of this policy. Flexible wage systems work both ways, but that has not yet dawned on the Opposition. In some industries in which workers can create havoc if they wish, their pay rates are unlikely to go down. In fact, in some areas wage rates may even skyrocket. The reason, of course, that the workers in these areas do not take this irresponsible road is simply that the present system of wage fixation is generally perceived as just and fair. I say `just and fair' because from time to time problems do arise and bloody-mindedness has on occasion reared its ugly head on both the employer and employee side. On one point, though, the Senate can be certain. If the present arbitrated system of wage fixation is white-anted, then a correct perception will creep into the minds of the employee organisations. The perception is that the strong will get on top, the weak will fail, and the only way forward is to take constant and immediate action. I repeat, for honourable senators opposite `constant and immediate action'. I believe that both these points need to be underlined. The action will be immediate and few other options will exist for employee organisations to protect the legitimate wage conditions that already exist. The need to do this will be constant-constant because what will happen if arbitration is white-anted in this way will be the substitution of the law of the jungle for the rule of law. Of course, the law of the jungle has one rule and one rule only-the survival of the fittest, the survival of the strongest. The industrial jungle will see the fittest and strongest survive. We are told by the Opposition that it wants flexibility-flexibility to destroy the basic strength of the arbitration system. This is supposed to lead to an environment in which peace and tranquillity will prevail. So much for centralised guarantees. What the Opposition wants is to destroy the very means by which industrial peace has been achieved. Three years ago when this Government came to power it did so in an economic environment very different from the one we have today. Unemployment had steadily become worse during the Howard-Fraser years until in 1982 it dropped over the cliff. Little can be said about the previous Government's policies other than that they were a disaster. However, in its twilight year the failed former Government tried to destroy centralised wage fixing. The message was clear and was taken up by the trade union movement. Massive increases in wages in areas of worker strength soon followed. To quote the words of one former prominent Liberal, they followed `as sure as night follows day'. The wage rises, of course, were not for all. Workers who were in areas that could be described as not strong fell behind. The erosion of living standards that followed hit large numbers of employees. A massive rise in unemployment also followed. Negative growth was a feature of the time Mr Howard was in control of the Treasury. It was a growth rate that had a negative sign before it. Employers naturally reacted in the only way they could. The uncertainty of this law of the jungle led them to hedge their bets, to not review plant and equipment, to reduce or not to place new orders. The results were disastrous. When the public at large had an opportunity to pass its verdict upon these supposed initiatives, it did so. In March 1983 the Howard-Fraser team were shown the door by the voters. Moreover, in December 1984 the solid progress that had been made since March 1983 saw the voters re-endorse the Hawke Labor Government for another term. The Hawke Labor Government had managed to turn the economy around. That was done by the creation of an economic world in which certainty and guarantees could be kept. The accord between all major participants in the economy in August 1983 set the pace for the dramatic turnaround. It also set the pace for wage fixation that was perceived by the vast majority of employees and employers as sound and just. The principles of this wage fixation became the foundation upon which this recovery took shape. On 28 April 1986 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Neil Brown, had some interesting things to say in an article in the Canberra Times entitled `Voluntary unionism-major Liberal platform'. If we want the law of the jungle instead of the rule of law, I venture to state that union membership might rise dramatically. The only way in which ordinary workers can be protected under these rules is to join a union. However, in the same article, Mr Brown was quoted as stating that the new policy `would also encourage more flexible industrial awards to abolish ``archaic'' practices'. He said that `the present industrial system was bad for business'. On 30 April we had a different angle put to us. In an article entitled `Liberals retreat on industrial policy' which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald we were told that the Liberals had watered down the policy that proved so successful last year in South Australia and Western Australia. In that article we find out that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will still have a role. The opting out clauses will now be referred to the Commission and the Commission will ratify the various award changes. Out of all this confusion we are presented with a couple more chestnuts. In a Press release yesterday from Mr Brown's office we find the following: It is clear therefore that reducing union power will make reform of our wage fixing process easier to achieve. Australia needs restraint on extremist union power which is stifling freedom and preventing Australians from having a more sensible wage fixing process. If the hidden agenda of all this is to reduce union power, the matter ought to be thought out again. The inescapable conclusion is that the Opposition wants to create a world of industrial relations in which large unions and employer organisations slug it out. It reminds me very much of an old time quack treating a patient suffering from blood loss with leeches! The point to be made here is that arbitration has been a well established tradition in Australia. Certainly from time to time problems exist. However, on the whole, the system has shown that it is adaptable and capable of measuring all types of submissions before it and coming down with a just consensus ruling. It has been this ability to create a just consensus that has ensured the existence of this body for so long. The average Australian worker has the view that a fair day's work should be compensated by a fair day's remuneration. By no stretch of the imagination will people in Australia accept less pay for the same work as another worker. They believe, and I agree with them, that wage justice will be eroded at peril to our economy. During 1985, the Opposition gave us a few pointers on what it was intent on doing when in government. It was going-at that stage at least-to sell back to the public what it already owned. The `privatisation policy', as it was so called, was less than successful. In South Australia and Western Australia the public rejected it. In Tasmania, the Liberal Party did not even take the policy seriously. We now have presented to us another confusing and contradictory policy. This time we are told that we need to reduce the power of the unions and, at the same time, create the circumstances in which union power is the only safeguard of workers' rights. My view is that such a move will have devastating results for employment. The tip of such devastation was in 1982. However, a full blown attempt at such measures will have terrible employment consequences. The employment consequences do not seem to be high on the agenda of the Opposition. In an article in the Australian on 11 April 1986 entitled `Libs take their time with policy on jobs' appears an interesting statement: Nevertheless, it remained unclear last night how the new industrial relations policy-centred primarily on the rigid wages system-could be separated from employment policy. Mr Brown, asked how long it would be before the Opposition had an employment policy, said: Well, the industrial relations policy will be released in the course of the next month or so. After I've rebuilt my energies from that launch, we will then put pen to paper on the employment policy. It remains my view that this policy certainly will also be the unemployment policy, or lack of employment policy. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.39) —I support the matter of urgency which reads as follows: The need in Australia for a more flexible system of wage fixing and a more co-operative approach to work practices. It is apparent that everyone in Australia, except the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government, is prepared to acknowledge that the root cause of our problems today is a totally inflexible wages system and entrenched, unproductive work practices. In a nutshell, the problems that we have include-I name but a few-an inflation rate of 9.2 per cent, which is absolutely frightening when compared with those of our major trading partners. By way of comparison, Japan has an inflation rate of 1.8 per cent; Germany, 0.7 per cent; and the United States of America 3.2 per cent. The average for countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is artificially bolstered to 3.8 per cent because of the performance of the other Labor Government, that of New Zealand, where the rate is running at about 16 per cent. We had an increase in wholesale prices of 6.7 per cent in the period to the end of March 1986. In West Germany the figure was minus 1.5 per cent, in Japan it was minus 7.7 per cent and in the United States of America it was minus 1.3 per cent. I have picked those countries at random; others are slightly different. But the implications of that are horrific when one thinks of the flow-on that must sooner or later occur into retail prices. We have the highest interest rates in 50 years. They have gone completely out of kilter with those of every other equivalent country in the world. As at the end of March the interest rate in Australia was around 19 per cent. In the United States of America it was 9 per cent; in Japan, 4.5 per cent; and in Germany, 7 per cent. We have a dollar which has collapsed on the market, which fact should be redressing our balance of payments situation. But that is not happening. I will come to that later. We have a balance of payments deficit which for the first nine months of this fiscal year is running at $1.2 billion a month. It is already standing at $10.4 billion, which is more than for the whole of 1984-85. That is the official target for the whole of this year but we still have three months to go. We have an overseas debt of about $80 billion with overseas interest payments alone of the order of $7 billion. The debt when the Hawke Government came into power was $34 billion. We have an unacceptably high rate of unemployment, particularly among young people. I suspect or hope that there are a few people in government who know that the real concern of the majority of Australians is the refusal of this Government, because it is paralysed under the control of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to recognise the inflexibility that exists within our wage structure. The pity of it all is that many of the practices which the Government and the ACTU will not recognise already occur in the work place. The fear of the ACTU and, of course, the Government-it is very hard to tell the difference; one is elected and one unelected but the unelected one controls the Government-is that the policies that already exist to some extent in the work place will carry on into other places. This, if allowed to continue, is a recipe for disaster. What we are proposing is not an attack on unions. They provide a very useful function in society, provided that they stick to that function. In recent years, however, not all but some have come to expect that they are not required to act within the law as is every other citizen within our society. Over a period of years they have taken the view that overmanning and punitive wage related conditions will preserve employment. The effect has been the opposite. By their actions they have reduced our competitiveness in both export and import replacement goods and services and have reduced employment. They have done a disservice to their members. People have been pushed into higher tax brackets and their purchasing power has been diminished. Let us look at some of the work practices that exist today in our great industries. The rural industry has been covered satisfactorily by Senator Brownhill so I will not go over that. Next is the mining industry. I was intrigued that Senator Cook was brought in to defend the Government on the flexibility or otherwise of its wages system. Senator Cook should not have been allowed into the chamber to talk on this issue. Prior to his entry into this place, Senator Cook was Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council in Western Australia. In that period he presided over, and presumably inspired, the worst industrial dislocations in the Pilbara. He was one of the architects of the perception by overseas people that Australia was an unreliable supplier which resulted in major buyers of Australian ore turning to Brazilian iron ore. Senator Cook —That is a lie. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! Senator PARER —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. That was terrible language from people on the other side. Senator Gareth Evans —You are not demanding that it be withdrawn, I understand. Senator PARER —Yes, I would like him to withdraw it. THE ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Cook, I ask you to withdraw the interjection. Senator Cook —In deference to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, I withdraw. Senator PARER —Senator Cook is well aware of the damage done to the mining industry in the days when he was the Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council in Western Australia. It is in the main a capital intensive industry competing with other countries. Yet what do we have in many areas of the mining industry? Senator Cook —Do you know what its record is now? Senator PARER —Senator Cook is no longer Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council so that may explain the reduction in industrial disputation. In much of the mining industry we have compulsory Christmas shutdowns so that all the capital equipment in this capital intensive industry lies idle. Certainly, no productive work is done in the coal mining industry in Queensland at weekends. It is a hangup from How Green Was My Valley, from the old Welsh days. There is an inability of management to talk with its employees. Within the open cut coal mining industry this is forbidden by the union leaders. I turn to shipping. Australia is an island continent with a history of trade going back before Federation. We should have a merchant navy equal to virtually any in the world. Why is that not the case? It is because we are not competitive on international shipping markets. Why are we not competitive on international shipping markets? I will give a few reasons. We have wage rates and conditions in excess of those of other competitive countries and in excess of the International Transport Workers Federation regulations. We have work practices under which the men work for six months and then have six months off. They refuse to carry out repairs at sea. The unreliability of dry-dock repairs and maintenance makes the cost totally prohibitive. A shipowner cannot be sure he will get his ship back if he lets it go into dry dock. We have crewing rates double those of our major trading partners such as Japan and Korea. Let me talk about tourism. Any attempt to have flexible working hours without penalty rates is totally resisted by the troglodytes in the trade union movement. On Sundays or public holidays penalty rates make it almost impossible to get a meal in a tourist area unless the establishment is run by a family. Of course, this means that employment which could be available is not available, particularly to young people. Let me refer to manufacturing industry. Archaic adherence to comparative wage justice has wrecked our manufacturing industry. Achievements attained by people such as Senator Cook in the Pilbara in the capital intensive mining industry have flowed on to labour intensive manufacturing industries. Senator Cook —That is a lie too. Senator PARER —Of course it has; Senator Cook knows that as well as I do. I have seen it happen in my own background. People have come along and said: `Don't worry. You are up here and get special consideration. It will not flow on'. The next thing that happens is that the tradesmen's group says that it will pass it on to everyone else. People then start to wonder why industry moves off-shore or shuts down and the equivalent goods are imported from South East Asia. It is often claimed that real unit labour costs have fallen as a result of the inflexible prices and incomes accord. Senator Walsh argues that. Senator Cook —It's true. Senator PARER —Senator Cook said before that the idea of the accord was in fact to maintain real wages, so I suggest that he and Senator Walsh ought to get together and get their story right. Senator Cook —Maybe you ought to understand the accord, so you would understand what you are talking about. Senator PARER —I can understand the accord, but I cannot understand the two points of view. If it were the case that real unit labour costs had fallen, the so-called J curve would be working and higher cost imports would be replaced by lower cost local manufacturing. Let me give an example which is indicative of many others in Australia today, one to which I referred the other day-the history of an on-line toaster designed in Australia by Sunbeam Corporation Ltd and launched on the Australian market earlier this year. Because of the international scope of its operations, Sunbeam was able to make accurate comparisons of costs in several possible sources of manufacture. The first comparison, made in January 1985 before the devaluation of the dollar, revealed that unit manufacturing costs for the toaster would have been $12.58 in the United States of America, $11.47 in New Zealand, $9.33 in Hong Kong, and $18.08 in Australia; almost double the Hong Kong price. Senator Cook —Are you going to tell us the source of this allegation? Senator PARER —Yes, I will. It happens to be the Sunbeam Corporation. Since the dramatic dip in our dollar the comparative manufacturing costs in Australia have improved a lot-Senator Cook will be pleased to hear that-but in the case of the toaster we are still not competitive. The latest costs are Australia, $18.08-unchanged; New Zealand, $15.42; the United States, $14.56; and Hong Kong, $10.80. Despite the devaluation benefits, Sunbeam elected to manufacture the new toaster in Hong Kong. The breakdown really spells out the disadvantages of manufacturing in Australia. It is in wage costs that Australia really slips. Senator McIntosh —Would you like to see us with the same wages as Hong Kong workers get? Senator PARER —No. A comparison of hourly wage rates for process workers puts Australia, at $7.40 an hour, at the top of the table, followed by the United States at $6.60 and New Zealand at $5.31. Senator Cook —This is a capital intensive area you are talking about. Senator PARER —It is a new toaster, which is capital and labour intensive, as Senator Cook knows. I am comparing this with the United States and New Zealand. It is pointed out also that only Australians have the privilege of a 38-hour week. Australia has the highest number of non-working days, at 52, compared with New Zealand with 30. This Government really has no choice. It must face up to the facts and recognise that we have a totally rigid wages system which is dragging down our country. Employers and their employees must be able to determine work practices which will be to the advantage of the employees, the industry and Australia. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.53) —This is a very interesting matter of urgency. Indeed, when the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, opened the debate on this we thought: `Here is a change in attitude, a change in approach which will move across the chamber and everybody will, as it were, join in almost a lovefest'. I remember Senator Cook listening with a great deal of interest when Senator Chaney was speaking and no doubt thinking: `At long last the new has arrived, there is a change in attitude'. Senator Chaney spoke about the need for co-operation, the need for us all to get together and work well together. Then we heard from two of the most powerful debaters on the other side, Senator Brownhill and Senator Parer, who came to this House about 15 months ago and have established themselves as great speakers. They were brought in by the Opposition to make what can only be called a most vicious and far-ranging attack on the trade union movement and on one of the great representatives of the trade union movement, Senator Cook, who has served that institution wonderfully in the past. Senator Gareth Evans —A hero of the working class. Senator COONEY —A hero of the working class. How much credence can we give an urgency motion which was begun by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney-a man of considerable skill-who invited us all to get around and be co-operative and give an example to the rest of Australia, but, having said that, immediately lapsed into the old ways? Senator Siddons, who made his usual sensible contribution to this debate, felt a little embarrassed about the fact that he was following on from that opening, where all was going to be love and light, but then a most vicious attack was made on one part of the economy-that is, the workers. Let us be clear what is being said here. The Opposition has asked that people take a cut in living standards and that, insofar as the unions attempt to prevent that happening, the unions must be cut down. That is really what this debate is all about. Let us be clear that no suggestion has been made by the Opposition speakers to approach the unions on this matter to see what they have to say about it. The whole tenor of the debate is that this union sector must be disciplined, punished and put into strait-jackets. How are we going to get all this love and light, all this co-operation that was called for, if one of the major elements of any scheme of reconciliation, namely, the union movement, is to be denigrated, abused and brought into disrepute? Clearly this urgency motion has to be looked at very carefully and perhaps looked at with some suspicion. The Opposition says: `There is a need for a more flexible system of wage fixing and a more co-operative approach to work practices'. How can we get a more co-operative approach to work practices if each time we abuse the workers in the work place and their unions? What sort of co-operation will we get if we take that approach? On the other hand, if we try some understanding-which is what has been happening through the prices and incomes accord-if we try to talk across the economic scene, not only to employees but also to employers, as this Government has done, we will get somewhere. The urgency motion today indicates exactly what will happen if the Opposition returns to government. As has been indicated in the debate, it would talk to management and employers and direct them to discipline the unions and the workers and put them, as it were, into strait-jackets. The Opposition has said: `No, we will not do that, we will have a flexible wage system'. What does that mean? That means that people in powerful positions-people who own and manage the factories-can dictate to the people who want to be employed by them exactly how much they will get-away from the help they might get from unions. The example put forward has been that of Mudginberri. When talking of Mudginberri no one on the other side has quoted what Mr Justice Neaves had to say on 14 August 1985 when talking about the Mudginberri situation. He said: . . . it is unrealistic, in considering the scope and object of the provisions here in question- he was talking about the law in regard to that situation- to confine one's attention to the circumstances relevant to the particular establishment and treat as extraneous and irrelevant wider considerations concerning the industry generally. Why has the Opposition come in here and tried to use that particular example as an example which applies right across the board, when we have people such as Mr Justice Neaves in the Federal Court of Australia last year-one might think that he is a man who stands well and truly above party politics-who says: `You cannot look at Mudginberri as an example of what can be done around the country, nor can you take Mudginberri as the end of the argument. What you have to do is to look at an industry generally'. Are not people who work in an industry entitled to have their conditions looked at? Not only is the economic welfare of that industry important but also the social conditions of the people who work in that industry are important. Today, during the debate, there has been absolutely no indication from the Opposition that it is in any way sensitive to the social problems people face in the work place. The Opposition is happy as long as the cost to industry is reduced by reducing wages. Reducing them to what? Perhaps to nothing? It has been suggested that they be reduced to the Hong Kong levels, to levels well below what workers in Australia have fought for for years and obtained. The Opposition would throw all those things out the window simply to relieve the cost on industry, without any consideration being given to the social suffering that might occur as a result of that. Is it not better-and this is a question which has not been answered-to go along with what is happening with the accord, under which consideration is given not only to the economic impact in the work place but also to the social impact that these sorts of things have on those working in industry? What will we get if all these things are abandoned? What will we get if employers are free to tell employees what they can earn? Will we do any better than we are doing at the moment? The answer to that is clearly no. Let us look at the evidence of how things are going. It is claimed that small business has been disadvantaged by the wage structures. I quote what the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said about a survey conducted by the Australian Statistician: The latest survey was carried out for the December quarter and it shows a growth in the employment of wage and salary earners for the year to December 1985 of 4.8 per cent . . . The private sector accounted for 86 per cent of the growth, it having had a growth in the employment of wage and salary earners in 1985 of 6 per cent, which was a tremendously high rate of growth. Not only was there strong growth in the private sector as a whole but also there was very strong growth among small business. One can get from the Statistician some unpublished data to complement what is in the published data. Taking the smallest of the three categories of private sector firms, which is firms with less than 20 employees, if one looks at the rate of growth of employment in that sector one finds that in the year to November 1985, the latest figures available, there was a growth in employment of 5.8 per cent, compared with growth for the private sector as a whole of 5.8 per cent. That is obviously a very high rate of growth for that small business sector. If one goes back two years, to November 1984, one finds growth for this small business sector over the period of 9.6 per cent, slightly higher than the whole private sector rate of 9.5 per cent. What that indicates, amongst a lot of other indications, is that business, including small business, has worked and has progressed well under the accord. Employment has risen, wages have been maintained at an at least reasonable level and things are going along well, not only economically but socially. Yet now we have a motion which indicates that the Opposition's approach would be to change all that. It wants to throw out the accord and go to what it calls a more flexible system of wage fixing. Remember this: There is plenty of flexibility in the wage structure already, as Senator Cook has so eloquently testified. But no, the Opposition wants to go further. What will it mean to go further and have a flexible wage system? It will mean simply that it will be in the hands of employers to pay what they will to those who are weakest in the work force, whereas those who are strongest in the work force will get more. That will result in class distinction amongst wage earners, with those who have strength, whether through their technological abilities or otherwise, getting disproportionately more. Remember, under a flexible wage system it is possible not only for people to get less but also for people to get more. We will have those with industrial strength getting more and those with little industrial strength getting less and getting poorer. Clearly it is not only wages that should count in a policy of co-operation. The Opposition's proposal ignores that. It fails to envisage how things would work in practice. We must remember that, in a policy of co-operation with workers, technological change is an industrial matter everybody should consider. Bringing in new machines and new techniques will cause redundancy problems. These are the sorts of things that should be looked at, in addition to wages. The matter of wages should not be taken in isolation, as it has been in this debate. We should also consider dividends, profits and what have you. Let me make it quite clear, people are more than entitled to dividends and profits, but just as that is so, so are people entitled to a decent standard of living. Why has this debate, initiated by the Opposition, been put on a basis which in no way gives any consideration to the social and cultural needs of ordinary, every day workers, which most people out in the community are? What protection has been suggested today for those sorts of people? What effect will the reduction in wages hoped for by the Opposition-indeed, it is its policy to reduce wages so that there is less cost to industry-have on the person who already is on a low wage? Why is no consideration given in these sorts of debates to those sorts of questions? We have to remember the disastrous situation we had in the old days before the Australian Labor Party came to power. For example, we had 17 per cent growth in the average weekly wage in March 1982-much more than pertains under this Government. We remember the bitter-that is the only way it can be described-industrial disputation that took place in those years. We remember the thousands of people sacked in Wollongong. We remember all those things and contrast them to the way we are now heading. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.09) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The paper before the Senate is the fifth annual report of the Central Land Council. I have remained keenly interested in the progress and development of the three land councils in the Northern Territory since their inception. The Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council were established to present the views of the Aboriginal people on their land rights to the Aboriginal Land Rights Commissioner, Justice Woodward, in his inquiry into the land rights issue in the early to mid-1970s. The land councils were maintained under the Aboriginal land rights legislation which was introduced following that inquiry. Their main statutory functions include assistance with preparation and presentation of land claims, management of Aboriginal land, negotiation of agreements on land use proposals, sacred site protection, supervision of land trusts and royalty management. It is a very apt time to be discussing the annual report of the CLC as Aboriginal land councils have been in the news in a big way quite recently. Press reports last month indicated that the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) planned to get rid of the land councils because they had become too cumbersome and unmanageable. Those reports were strongly denied by the Minister. However, I would not be surprised if there is not some element of truth to those reports. It is well recognised in the Northern Territory that the land councils have developed into very strong centralised organisations which are becoming less and less responsive to the needs of the people they purport to represent. The leaders of the councils seem to be more preoccupied with empire building than with ensuring that funds are well spent on Aboriginal people at grass roots level. I make it quite clear that I do not make these comments to knock the concept of representative Aboriginal organisations. I am 100 per cent in favour of Aboriginal people having a forum in which to express their opinions and a means of conveying those opinions to the Government and other sectors of the community. My concern is that the land councils are no longer generally representative of Aboriginal people. They are run by a small clique who have minimal contact in some cases with the old men of the tribes-those who traditionally advised and led their people. These bureaux of land councils, I say, are not now representative. This development has led to some Aboriginal people wishing to form splinter land councils to protect what they perceive as their own interests which are being neglected by the land councils. Land councils have become far too bureaucratic. They are top-heavy with administrators, consultants, advisers and an assortment of others who receive significant proportions of the funds for Aboriginal people to the detriment of the community Aboriginals who are in need of assistance. The situation of land councils in the Territory has really become a situation of the tail wagging the dog. This cannot have escaped the notice of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and however much he may deny it now, I would not be surprised, as I say, if there is not an element of truth to the claims that the land councils are to be dismantled, with presumably and hopefully some more representative organisations set up in their place. One of the problems in providing services and resources to Aboriginal people seems to be that there is a duplication of delivery facilities and, hence, wastage of funds. During recent Estimates Committee hearings it was revealed that there are some 1,000 organisations dealing with Aboriginal services and there is no real attempt to ensure that duplication and wastage does not occur as a result of this. The whole matter of funding, delivery and representation needs to be reviewed and some less wasteful and more beneficial scheme must be devised. The money should not be spent on administrative costs for 1,000 organisations. It should get into the communities where it can provide housing, health care, education and essential services. This does not happen now. One final matter of great concern to the land councils and to which this report refers is the excision of land from pastoral leases for the purpose of providing living areas. Procedural guidelines were set up in the Territory for the excision of living areas and they allow for secure tenure of land for Aboriginal people residing or who have resided in the recent past on pastoral properties. The scheme was only set up in April 1985 and figures are now available to show to what extent the scheme has been used until 31 January 1986. At the end of that period there were 91 still at the expression of interest stage, 58 had got as far as negotiations, 17 had failed to reach agreement, 11 had reached agreement in principle and 30 had signed a formal agreement. The idea behind the procedure was to avoid the necessity for special legislation, expensive tribunals and the like. It was intended that with some good will on both sides-Aboriginal and pastoralist-agreement could be reached by negotiations. The figures which I have just quoted show that substantial progress has been achieved as a result of the contribution and co-operation of many people, not least the pastoralists and the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association. This gives added impetus to call for the amendment of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. We have yet to see the Federal Government's legislation although I understand there are suggestions that it will be introduced into the Parliament shortly. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.14) —I wish to speak only briefly to the fifth annual report-1984-85-of the Central Land Council. To those people who are interested in the current situation with regard to land rights in Australia, I recommend that they read this report. It is a report put together by the Aboriginal people themselves. They run that Council and they run the organisation in a very efficient and effective manner. The Council engages in various activities, particularly with regard to education, the administration of the parts of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act which are under its control, the research it provides for the land claims and mining and cultural protection, on which it gives advice, and the legal division which assists Aboriginal people and various groups with regard to land claims. All of these activities are carried out in an exemplary manner. In Australia we find too often a willingness to criticise Aboriginal people and Aboriginal-run organisations. I suggest that those people in Australia who feel that that is the normal course of events should look at the Central Land Council, which is a body which controls quite significant funds and which has very important matters under its control, and see the very effective and efficient way in which those functions are carried out. I think it does credit to the Central Land Council. Its report is a report that would be accepted as being a very good report by almost any government organisation. This is not a government organisation; this is one of the few almost, as it were, independent organisations which presents a report to this Parliament. I found the report fascinating and interesting reading and I hope that more people in Australia will read this type of good news instead of the type of bad news which is so constantly put around about Aboriginal people and their organisations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(5.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the annual report for 1984-85 of the Human Rights Commission. I note with some interest and concern that it is reported on page 79 of the report that the budget for the Commission in 1984-85 was more than double that of the actual allocation in 1983-84, and that of that more than doubling increase, the administrative expenses increased almost threefold from $1.12m in 1983-84 to $2.99m in 1984-85. One of the reasons given in the report for the increase of this magnitude is the first full year's operation of the Commission's education program in the schools, `Teaching for Human Rights'. The Senate will recall that this was an educative program that attracted a lot of attention here and in the wider community some time ago. Over the last two or three months it has also been considered in the debates we have had on the Australian Bill of Rights proposals and one wonders how justified, when one looks at this teaching program, many of the other expenditure increases of the Commission are. Time has prevented me looking at that, but I just repeat for the benefit of the Senate one of the criticisms that was echoed very strongly in this place about some of the teaching for human rights material which has been distributed to schools-155 schools throughout Australia, I remind the Senate-and of the fact that teachers receive a payment of $500 or $1,000, depending on whether it was a one-year or two-year project, to promote this material in the schools. There is a very questionable content in that documentation, including a very anti-Western society or anti-capitalist bias in those writings. I will just repeat the most well-recorded text from the booklet `Teaching for Human Rights': The construction of a capitalist world economy, predicated upon dishonesty and greed, has slaughtered uncounted millions the world over through the exploitation and the mis-development of global resources. The United States and the other erstwhile `free market' democracies have much to answer for in this regard. That was not atypical of the type of material and the flavour of the material in much of that `Teaching for Human Rights' documentation which has gone out from the Human Rights Commission to the schools. I understand that the publication is under review with a view to taking out some passages like that. Nevertheless, that will not affect the whole flavour of the documentation. It is one of the reasons why many members of the community have expressed very grave concern, as I am sure would all honourable senators on both sides, about the nature of the Human Rights Commission and the role that it will play if and when the Government's Bill of Rights legislation comes into being, because the Human Rights Commission will be given a greatly expanded role under that legislation. It will have powers that very few, if any, bureaucratic arms of government have ever had. I repeat the concerns that I have expressed on this Bill on more than one occasion. The Human Rights Commission will be pivotal to where we go in the area of human rights. For that reason, the Human Rights Commission annual report 1984-85 bears very serious consideration. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(5.21) —I have pleasure in speaking, albeit briefly, to the Human Rights Commission annual report 1984-85. To recognise publicly that not all the good things that happen in our society have been undertaken by the Hawke Labor Government I remind honourable senators that the Commission was set up by the previous Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. The functions of the Commission are many and varied. The report states: 9 (1) The functions of the Commission are- (a) to examine enactments, and (when requested to do so by the Minister) proposed enactments, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the enactments or proposed enactments are, or would be, inconsistent with or contrary to any human rights, and to report to the Minister the results of any such examination. Annexed to the Human Rights Commission Act which set up the Commission in 1981 are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons and the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights proclaims the right of all people to privacy, marriage and family, use by minorities of their own language, culture and religion, participation in public affairs, freedom of expression, movement, association and assembly, and a number of other matters. I mention these things only because in the concluding chapter of the report the Commission refers, in what I believe to be a tongue in cheek comment, to the fact that it has been in receipt of a degree of criticism to such a point that in some cases the suggestion has been made that the Commission be abolished. Many of the criticisms of the Human Rights Commission have been associated with the proposed Australian Bill of Rights which is before this chamber. Another criticism that has been levelled at the Commission is that it is a star chamber. Webster's Dictionary defines it as: A court existing in England from the 15th century until 1641 that exercised wide civil and criminal jurisdiction under rules of procedure well suited to the purposes of absolutist sovereigns. Speaking with an Irish accent, I can say that the history of my people would verify that. In no way could we claim that the Australian Human Rights Commission in any shape or form could be deemed to be a star chamber. Another criticism levelled at the Commission is based on cost. Its budget for 1985-86 is $4.76m. This is only one per cent of the projected expenditure on law, order and public safety of $454m. Thus, it is only 0.007 per cent of the total Budget outlay of the Commonwealth for 1985-86. It is worthy of note that during July 1984 to June 1985, the period which the report covers, seven major reports were produced by the Commission. Its eighth report dealt with deportation, the ninth with the Queensland Community Services (Aborigines) Act, the tenth with the Human rights of Australian-born children, the eleventh with human rights and the terminally ill, the twelfth with the Queensland Electricity (Continuity of Supply) Act, the thirteenth with human rights and the Migration Act and the fourteenth with Queensland electricity supply and related industrial legislation. Of seven major reports by the Commission in the year July 1984 to June 1985, three dealt with legislation within Queensland. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.25) —The annual report of the Human Rights Commission allows a number of matters to be raised which in part relate to the Bill of Rights and associated legislation before the Senate. However, I direct my remarks to a couple of matters which are specifically raised in this annual report. Perhaps the annual report ought to be seen as indicating that in some respects the Human Rights Commission reports could be a two-edged sword. A number of reports were made to the Government during the year on the rights of Australian-born children of people who had overstayed their permission to reside in Australia. These matters having been drawn to the attention of the Human Rights Commission, it made public its belief that the civil rights of those children were being infringed when parents were properly deported. The matter having been drawn to the Government's attention, the Government decided that it was best to legislate to take away the rights of the children in total so that that situation could never occur again. It is unfortunate that in this case a matter has been drawn to the Government's attention involving abuses of human rights of particular categories of persons, namely certain children born in Australia, and those rights are now to be wiped out permanently. The second point arising from the report is the distressing news in one of the very famous cases with which the Commission dealt, that of Mr Metwally, who had an action against the University of Wollongong. Mr Metwally was a victim of the legal system. It was found that his case could not be acted upon because there was a jurisdictional problem in that the legislation in New South Wales was in conflict with the Federal legislation and, therefore, the Federal legislation prevailed. Mr Justice Deane of the High Court of Australia is quoted on page 22 of the report as drawing attention to this matter: The outcome of this case will inevitably appear to Mr Metwally to involve an unjust denial of his reasonable expectation that, as a visitor to this country, he might resort to, and rely upon, what Governments and Parliaments have asserted to be the law. Mr Justice Deane went on to say that unfortunately Mr Metwally cannot do so. Although compensation was recommended by the Bench of the High Court of Australia, he has to date received no compensation. I make two final points. I believe that a number of tribunals of this sort are bringing on themselves some ill-informed criticism from the community. In a decision made in New South Wales quite recently, on 24 April, in the case of Shane Edmund Burke v. Peter Tralaggan and John Spence Real Estate Pty Ltd in which a person acted on his conscientious religious belief about the sort of people to whom he should lease his property, the Equal Opportunity Tribunal ruled that the landlord did not have that right and he was not to be allowed to practise his religious freedom in a way that was in conflict, so it appeared, with a law in New South Wales. Nevertheless, the Human Rights Commission report provides us with some very valuable information not least of value being a statement at the end of the report by a Minister who is reported to have said: I believe, and the Government believes, that in an era of social change in which governments exercise wide powers and corporations and large institutions greatly influence the lives of individuals, it is important to have an agency that is active in the protection and promotion of the rights of individuals. Those words were spoken by Senator Durack, my Party's Deputy Leader, in 1981 when introducing the legislation to establish the Human Rights Commission. I believe that Senator Durack would not want to resile in any way from the words he spoke on that occasion. I believe they are an accurate reflection of what is required in the years to come. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.30) —The five minutes that are at my disposal to discuss the Human Rights Commission annual report do not enable me to deal with all the matters I would like to deal with on this very important report. A number of matters have been adverted to and a number have not. For example, I would like to have had the opportunity of discussing Occasional Paper No. 10 prepared by the Human Rights Commission and entitled `Legal and Ethical Aspects of the Management of Newborns with Severe Disabilities'. A number of people have analysed that paper and have concluded that it sets the scene for the legalisation of infanticide in Australia, which of course is turning human rights on its head, denying fundamental human rights to newborns with severe disabilities. I was pleased to hear Senator Puplick adverting to that very disconcerting case in Sydney, the Tralaggan case, which was reported in the Weekend Australian of 26-27 April and has exercised the minds of a number of people in Australia. Here is a human rights body, an equal opportunities tribunal, denying an individual the fundamental right of conscientious freedom to let a unit to a married person rather than an unmarried person. Senator Puplick —A de facto couple-not an unmarried person. Senator HARRADINE —A de facto couple in that case. The Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act, which the Human Rights Commission and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner administer, makes it illegal for anyone to refuse to let premises to unmarried persons for the purpose of cohabitation. When I asked the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) a question the other day he confirmed that the Act would prohibit advertisements and leasing arrangements which would give preference to a legally married couple over unmarried couples, except where the rooms were in close proximity to the lessor's domestic quarters. The line being adopted by the Federal Government in this Sex Discrimination Act is an affront to the rights of Australian citizens to exercise their consciences on matters of great moral importance to society, such as marriage. It is one thing for the Government to give de facto relationships the same status as a legally married relationship but it is quite another matter to force this view on Australians under pain of penalty, and I think that is the point Senator Puplick was making. That, of course, would meet with a fair degree of concern by honourable senators on both sides of the Parliament, I hope. It is a matter of concern not only to Christians but also to Jews, Muslims and anyone who regards highly the integrity of conscience. I believe we have an opportunity coming before us very shortly to amend the Sex Discrimination Act in the light of the fact that the Minister, Senator Evans, has said that the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act could operate in the same way as the infamous Tralaggan case in New South Wales. I have prepared amendments to the sex discrimination legislation that is coming before the Parliament in the next week or so for that purpose. I have also prepared amendments so as to overcome a problem which trade unionists are facing because the defences available under section 40 of the Sex Discrimination Act are not available to discriminators who are required by State legislation to protect women employees in respect of lifting weights. The Sex Discrimination Act will operate to force women to lift weights above those that are currently prescribed in legislation in the States, and I have an amendment which I hope will be passed by this Parliament in the next couple of weeks. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.35) —I want to say something in defence of those people who form the Human Rights Commission. In recent days they have come under very strong attack. In effect, they have been denigrated and subtly, or perhaps not so subtly, brought into disrepute in this community, mainly in the context of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. That Bill has been before the Senate since late last year. The Human Rights Commission has been functioning now for almost five years. Because the cut and thrust of debate needs some ammunition that ammunition is being sought in terms of attacks upon the Commission and, by implication, the Commissioners themselves. They are in the unfortunate position of not being able to defend themselves in the way that no doubt they would like and they certainly do not have the chance that parliamentarians have to put their points of view. If we look at pages 10 to 18 of the Human Rights Commission annual report and at the photographs of the people who form the Commission, we see that all of them look very much middle Australians. None of them could be called anything other than decent, everyday, ordinary Australians trying to do the job they have been given. That is certainly not the picture that has been presented again and again both inside this chamber and outside in debates around the country on the Bill of Rights in particular. First of all, we have a picture of Dame Roma Mitchell, a very eminent judge of the Supreme Court in South Australia and a very highly respected woman. We then have Mr Peter Bailey, who has been in the Commonwealth Public Service for many years and has held his positions in the Service with great distinction. We have Professor Manuel Aroney, who again has done great work amongst ethnic people. Professor Peter Boyce, having been made Chancellor of the Murdoch University, has felt the necessity to resign, and he has been replaced by Mr Marcus Einfeld, of Queen's Counsel. Professor Peter Boyce again contributed vitally to this body. We have Mrs Norma Ford, a solicitor from Traralgon who has had a great association with the women's movement, Mrs Eva Geia, an Aboriginal, and Ms Elizabeth Hastings, a person who suffers physical disabilities but whose keen mind has contributed greatly to this body. Time prevents me from going further into the matter, but I think it is proper for me to place on record at this stage that many people in the community appreciate the work these people have done on the Commission. The Commission has dealt with complaints over the years. It has summonsed documents on only two occasions and it has done great work in defending the ordinary citizen against the bureaucracy. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The time for the consideration of Government papers has expired. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Richardson I table additional information received by Estimates Committee A, and I seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I give notice that, contingent upon the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 being read a second time, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Harradine moving the following amendments to the Bill to provide for the insertion in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 of new sections: I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my notice of motion in Hansard. Leave granted. The remainder of the notice of motion read as follows- (1) Page 1, after clause 1, insert the following new clause: ``1A. The Principal Act is amended by adding after Section 43 the following section: `Conscientious objection `43A. (1) Nothing in Division 1 or 2 renders it unlawful for a person to decline to perform or participate in the performance of any act the performance of which would be contrary to genuinely held conscientious beliefs of that person. `(2) In sub-section (1), `conscientious beliefs' means any conscientious beliefs, whether the grounds for the beliefs are or are not of a religious character and whether the beliefs are or are not part of the doctrine of any religion. `(3) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the performance of an act shall be taken to be contrary to the conscientious beliefs of a person if, and only if, that person has a deeply held conviction that the performance of that act would be morally wrong, and that that person is morally obliged not to perform that act regardless of any considerations of personal advantage or disadvantage to that person or other persons.'.''. (2) Page 1, after new clause 1A, insert the following clause: ``1B. The Principal Act is amended by inserting after Section 43A the following section: `Weights to be lifted by females `43B. Nothing in Division 1 or 2 affects anything done by a person in direct compliance with a provision of a law of a State or Territory which provides that female employees may not be required to lift objects having a mass greater than a specified mass.'.''. Motion (by Senator Vigor) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the sale of, and dealings with, hazardous goods, and for purposes connected therewith. Bill presented by Senator Vigor, and read a first time. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.40) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is part of a concerted package of legislation to solve some of the problems facing Australian consumers. This particular Bill deals with consumer safety. Australians are dying, Australians are being hurt, Fellow Australians are suffering, Australians are paying for corporate greed. Anyone of us could be the next victim. Our fragmented approach to identifying and dealing with hazardous products has caused and is right now causing needless harm to innocent Australians. I propose a co-operative solution where the Commonwealth complements and enhances the work of State authorities by ensuring, as far as is possible under our Constitution, that hazardous products cannot continue to be offered for sale to Australians or to anyone. I hope that the States will reciprocate the trust that we have placed in their expert officers by accepting the results of work carried out elsewhere in Australia. In this way we can stamp out most of the current dealing in goods not fit to be offered for sale. It is a tragic twist of history that governments and legislatures have generally failed to deal with the menace posed by dangerous goods until after a major disaster has occurred. I ask the government to act now and support this Bill. We must not wait for either a trickle of deaths and injuries, or for a major catastrophe before taking action. In the United States, where the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency monitor standards that are among the most safety-conscious in the world, improvements in the legislation have quickly followed tragedies. Our record in Australia is much worse. In 1937, a chemist at the S. E. Massengill Company found that a formerly insoluble `sulpha' drug would dissolve in a chemical relative of radiator antifreeze. The product was eagerly marketed as `Elixir of Sulfanilamide' without any safety testing. Within weeks, reports of deaths of those who had consumed the Elixir started reaching the Food and Drug Administration. In all, 107 people died as a result of taking the product and the chemist committed suicide. The following year, Congress passed the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act which required a new drug to be tested for safety by the manufacturer and their results to be reported to the Food and Drug Administration. It also abolished the requirement that only false and fraudulent labelling of drugs be punishable. Nevertheless, there was no requirement that manufacturers sustain with scientific evidence claims which they made for their products. In 1962, President Kennedy pointed out that one in five of the new drugs that had been introduced in the last six years failed to live up to one or more of their manufacturers' claims. Congress enacted in that year the Kefauver-Harris amendments which required drug manufacturers to provide evidence from well-controlled expertly-conducted clinical tests to back up all claims made concerning the effectiveness or safety of their products. This legislation followed quickly after the world-wide thalidomide scandal. Thalidomide had been introduced as a tranquiliser by Chemie Grunenthal of West Germany in 1957. The drug was advertised as being completely safe, and by 1961 thalidomide was providing half the company's sales revenue. Although no tests had been done on the effects of the drug on foetuses, advertising literature claimed that thalidomide could `Be given with complete safety to pregnant women'. Doctors who reported problems with the nervous system in some patients who had taken the drug, and others who raised possible connections with phocomelia, were ignored and publicly blackguarded if they persisted in their opposition to the drug. Great pressure was placed on medical authorities to allow thalidomide to be sold over-the-counter and without prescription. This pressure succeeded in several countries but not in the United States, largely because the responsible officers in the Food and Drug Administration, Dr Lelsey in particular, withstood all blandishments and threats. At this stage, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act still applied only to pharmaceuticals. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon sent eight consecutive annual messages to Congress, urging them to legislate to require pre-marketing clearance of medical devices for safety, efficacy and reliability. None of these entreaties resulted in any legislative action being taken. When in 1971 G. D. Searle and Company was seeking to market the Copper-Seven (Cu-7) intra-uterine device and to contend that its copper content increased its contraceptive efficiency, the Food and Drug Administration ruled that because the device contained a non-inert substance, it was a new drug and consequently has to face the pre-market testing and other safety and effectiveness requirements. The A. H. Robins Company sought to avoid these strictures by claiming that the copper and copper sulphate in the Dalkon shield served only to improve physical or mechanical characteristics of the device, and had no active function in its contraceptive effectiveness. This was despite the warning by A. H. Robins' Director of Product Planning that the addition of copper and copper sulphate to the plastic from which the Dalkon shield was moulded `May have a deleterious effect on account of the irritant and astringent nature of copper salts.' He was also worried that not disclosing the presence of copper and copper sulphate to doctors amounted to an implied warranty that the device alone was producing the contraceptive effect. Yet because copper had appeared to improve effectiveness, the soluble copper sulphate has been added to further enhance it. Even though A. H. Robins withheld their evidence that the Dalkon shield's multifilament string could act as a conduit for bacteria into the womb, the Food and Drug Administration in October of 1974 stated that the Shield's safety remained in question and that `The moratorium on commercial distribution . . . [would] remain in effect pending accumulation of definitive data.' The shield was never again sold in the United States, but vast quantities were promptly exported to many countries around the world, including Australia. As more and more women suffered severely from the use of the Dalkon shield, and more and more evidence emerged about the misleading advertising and corporate corruption, U.S. Congress adopted the Medical Device Amendments of 1976. Australian women, however, continued to be fitted with Dalkon shields well into the nineteen seventies even though A. H. Robbins Company ``ceased'' distribution of the devices in Australia in 1975. They had dumped so many of the devices already in Australia, and these continued to be fitted by the Family Planning Association for instance. As only patchy records of implantations were kept, we cannot even now be certain that all have been removed. Yet the last day for claims and damages caused by this product worldwide was last Thursday, 30 April 1986. I sincerely hope the Government will be approaching the United States Government to extend this deadline for Australian women. The present Government has improved the Australian situation relating to safety of drugs, chemical agents and therapeutic goods over the past two years. In the Budget for 1984-85, $1.3 million was set aside to establish a register of medical devices sold in Australia. The National Therapeutic Goods Committee proposed this in 1970, but it was unfortunately set aside. The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare took it up again in 1981 and eventually the Government took action. The Government has also made a commitment to introduce a Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. This follows a proposed budget initiative on which work is already proceeding which will provide a computerised databank register of medical devices and any problems experienced with them. We will also, I hope, have an excellent record of pharmaceuticals and a complete summary of reports of suspected adverse reactions. In December 1985, the Acting Minister for Health wrote to me that ``The question of adapting the National Register of Therapeutic Goods to provide a reporting system for defects in, or injuries due to medical devices and to provide a hazard alert for devices is under consideration.'' I sincerely hope that the resources will be found to implement this important undertaking. I also commend the recently-passed product recall legislation. The Social Development Committee of the Victorian Parliament made the following recommendations in its excellent report of November 1985 titled ``Inquiry into Therapeutic Goods and Cosmetics Bill 1984''. ``(54) That the Commonwealth Government maintains its evaluation processes for imported therapeutic products. ``(55) That the issue of a National Registration Scheme, its resources, staffing and operation be referred to the next Health Ministers' Conference.'' The Committee made these remarks in its report: ``The Commonwealth exercises its powers through an adequate evaluation of the importation of new therapeutic products and drugs into Australia. ``However, the registration of Australian-produced products is vital and is not currently adequately controlled by the Commonwealth. For this reason, the Committee concludes that the present Australian system is unsatisfactory.'' The Social Development Committee devoted two chapters of its Report to the interlocking Federal and State powers, and the consequent legislation relating to: The registration of products, The licensing of manufacturers and wholesalers, The control of advertising, The setting of standards, and Various import controls. There are no uniform definitions of therapeutic goods and cosmetics, nor an inkling of a uniform approach to legislation. For instance, in regard to controls placed on therapeutic goods and their distribution and promotion, the Committee concluded that ``. . . problems include a lack of uniformity, a lack of resources to implement controls, and a lack of clarity and incomplete coverage of regulations''. It also said that ``. . . apart from New South Wales, all other States and Territories have rather broad sweeping provisions in their legislation which are non-specific and in all cases appear deficient in resources and staffing''. I believe that this situation applies generally to consumer safety matters, not just to therapeutic goods and cosmetics dealt with so thoroughly by the Social Development Committee. Under the Trade Practices Act, a Commonwealth Minister may proclaim product safety and product information standards, and can declare goods to be unsafe where it appears that injury may be caused to either persons using the goods or to any other persons. The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations also include extensive lists of goods which are unsafe or dangerous and consequently are not allowed into Australia. Some of the items are fairly general, and a customs officer may not be able to detect a problem without recourse to facilities for analysing the ingredients or composition of a product. Some items will always slip through no matter how carefully enquiries are conducted. State governments have powers to deal with hazardous products under a variety of legislation, including Health Acts, Consumer Protection Acts and Environmental Protection Acts. Ministers for Consumer Affairs quite regularly gazette notices banning the supply of particular goods or varieties of goods in their States. Similar orders are made in the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory. While the staff dealing with such matters are generally most enthusiastic and dedicated, the overall resources are quite limited and staff can rarely initiate action as a result of their personal inspections and testing of products. Basically, the Departments or Offices of Consumer Affairs have to wait for complaints from the public or notifications of danger after the event, before they spring into action. Only as long as there is generally an atmosphere of willing and cordial exchange of information between jurisdictions, is there a mechanism for co-ordinating prohibition action. Without an effective mechanism for information exchange, unscrupulous operators can move their wares interstate and open up trade, perhaps after waiting for the fuss in the State where the prohibition is in force to die down. My approach in this Bill is to complement the independent activities of the Offices and Departments with a central registry or clearing house for such notification to ensure that no such dangerous products can go unnoticed. Where State Departments or Offices have determined that goods are hazardous, I believe that their judgment can be trusted, and that all Australians should, if possible, be able to benefit from that work. Accordingly, I have drawn on the corporations, trade and commerce, territories, broadcasting and postal powers of the Commonwealth to restrict, as much as can be done within the Australian Constitution, the scope for moving hazardous goods away from any place where their sale is prohibited. Naturally, I have left open the possibility that the goods may be dealt with inside Australia as scrap, or be returned to the manufacturer for repair or reprocessing. However, in the light of previous experience, which I shall come to directly, and of the need for the most exacting ethical standards in foreign trade which is needed if we are to establish a reputation for trading integrity for Australia, I believe that once goods have been declared hazardous, they should not leave this country for any purpose whatsoever. This is quite compatible with the Government's approach in amending the Trade Practices Act: it would just place goods declared to be unsafe in a category much more strictly monitored than goods not meeting published Australian standards which are able to be sent overseas under certain very stringent notification conditions. The need for some tough and uncompromising co-ordinating action is absolutely clear from past examples. In my maiden speech, I referred to the need for an adequate child accident surveillance and reporting system. I mentioned the deaths and hideous injuries caused by a `potty' shaped skimmer box used extensively in fibreglass swimming pools around Australia. Children who mistakenly sat on the box were maimed or disembowelled through the heavy suction. Three died and seven were severely injured. It took some nine months to co-ordinate a nationwide ban on this hazardous product in 1983. If a reader had not sent a clipping from a Northern Territory newspaper to Choice magazine, the process may well have been drawn out for months longer, and more children might have been killed, injured or needlessly put at risk. The problem of banned products reappearing on the market under a new name is illustrated by the case of a compound used for blowing balloons. The product went under a variety of names, including ``Super Elastic Bubble Plastic'', ``Magic Moon Balloons'', ``Blo-it'' and ``Loony Balloony''. It was first banned in New South Wales in 1974 after it was found that something in the compound caused throat irritation. A federal import ban was imposed in 1979 when it was discovered that substances in the compound were carcinogenic. To this day, the schedule of prohibited imports under the Customs Regulations contains the entry ``Balloon-blowing kits capable of being used to make balloon shapes, which contain polyvinyl acetate, ethyl acetate, acetone or benezene''. Whether unscrupulous importers or those deceived by overseas manufacturers would volunteer enough information for a customs officer to treat such items with suspicion is not clear. However, in 1981, New Concept Import Services Pty Ltd was fined a mere $2,000 for selling such a product. I believe that the internal restrictions on movement, and the seizure, and possibility of court order of destruction, of such hazardous products, which are provided for in this Bill, would lessen the chances of such episodes recurring. There are copious examples where products banned in one or more States have remained on sale elsewhere in Australia. One of the more grotesque cases began in 1981. Some brands of doll's feeding bottles were found to contain coloured water contaminated by human faeces. Bans were imposed in New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, and like items subjected to the most stringent health standards in future. Yet the bottles were reported as still on sale in Victoria last year. A similar thing happened in the case of the Sweet Suzie toy vacuum cleaner banned New South Wales in June 1984. A subscriber of Choice magazine drew that publication's attention to the potentially-fatal inhalation by children of polystyrene beads that were used as play dirt. Several children had died after inhaling similar beads used in bean bags, and choking to death. It took some nine months before officers of the Victorian Consumer Affairs Ministry were convinced that the item was still on sale in their State, and got around to initiating remedial action. There was the case last year where necklaces made from strychnine seeds had been banned in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, both Territories and under the Commonwealth Customs Act. In a letter to its Product Monitors in March, the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations asked that people check for the product's availability where is was banned, and that they lobby for its proscription in Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. The following month, the volunteers were asked to check for an imported lamp filled with wine. It was claimed in the instructions that the bottle could be filled with petrol and the lamp lit once the wine had been drunk. Unfortunately the strong possibility of a Molotov Cocktail exploding had not occurred to whoever came up with that idea. Initially however, only South Australia and Victoria banned the item from sale. This Bill seeks to minimise the risk of injury to Australians by making it as hard as possible for commerce in dangerous products to take place once the danger has been detected by at least one competent Australian Government body. The states can obviously assist by adopting uniform legislation based on the concept of a national register of hazardous products which combines all their efforts and protects all Australians as a result of any detection of dangers. In a situation where individual States' resources are stretched thin anyway, it is quite tragic that they be wasted in re-doing work already carried out elsewhere. I shall be appealing to all State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to consider the well-being of all Australians, and to show faith in the expertise of all officers working on consumer hazards in this country. After the legislation is proclaimed we will no longer see the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department listing items banned in only one or two states or territories in its informative publication ``Minder''. In the United States, there has been a robust Consumer Product Safety Commission in existence since 1972. The Commission's own work revolves around the imposition of standards, the banning of dangerous products and the maintenance of statistical databases. By its own estimates the Commission has saved US Taxpayers over $15,000 million. Its work has diminished lost working time and cut down both hospital and medical costs; and much more significantly it has eliminated much suffering and needless injuries. The Commission established a sample procedure to monitor hospital emergency rooms in 1976. Recently the US Federation of Consumer Organisations concluded that in return for the $31 million spent on the collection of data research and national enforcement each year, there were savings of over $700 million in medical, disability and rehabilitation costs. I believe that a similar approach is needed in Australia. Instead of tolerating fragmented State, Federal and Departmental responsibilities, we should bring together the people and resources currently in this area of consumer safety. We can in this way better protect Australians from injury and suffering, and save millions of taxpayers dollars. The Victorian Minister for Consumer Affairs, Mr Spyker, has been noteworthy for his strong, public support for the notion. It is, and has been for some time, Federal A.L.P. policy. The question transcends party politics and this sensible step of legislation must be taken as soon as possible. It can only win the praise of all Australians. One way of achieving this goal is to expand the resources available to the proposed registrar of Hazardous Products and the investigative and administrative brief of the registry. Just as we need to shed parochial jealousies in relation to the battle against disease, poverty and crime, we must sustain a unified campaign against hazardous goods. We must also take proper heed of detailed work carried out overseas. That is why I have given the Registrar of Hazardous Products a capacity to seek out information and take other steps to be satisfied or otherwise about the safety of any goods. It is important for Australia to apply its standards and make its decisions on the best information available and preferably information related to local conditions. This is particularly so when we are faced with greater theoretical hazards on one count or another. An excellent case in point was that of the anti-arthritis drug, Opren, which was never approved for use in Australia because it increased users' sensitivity to ultraviolet light. However, its use in the United Kingdom, under the name Oraflex, resulted in the deaths of at least 25 people. Others died from kidney and liver failure in Scandinavia. The Food and Drug Administration was purposely not told of any known overseas problems before it approved the use of the drug in the United States in April 1982. A lot of the information still had not been provided when the drug was withdrawn from the market in August of that year, following at least 26 deaths and another 200 serious cases of kidney and liver failure in Scandinavia. The Eli Lilly company and its chairman were prosecuted last year by the US Justice Department and given small fines after some plea bargaining which was said to have arisen from the difficulty of proving intent to deceive or defraud. Dr Sidney Wolfe, director of the Public Citizen Health Research Group, in fact strongly attacked the Justice Department for its timidity in the light of its report, and claimed that Lilly executives should have been put in jail. Cases such as this one and the deceit of the A. H. Robins Company over the Dalkon shield drive home the point that we cannot just rely on the word of manufacturers. When there are vast sums of money at stake, there will always be temptations for corporations to sweep unpleasant facts under the carpet in the hope of the problem going away. That certainly happened in the case of Robins where conscientious employees were ordered to keep quiet, and later hounded out of the company for insisting that the multifilament string could be easily prevented from acting as a wick for bacteria to get into the uterus. I do not believe that this sort of misbehaviour should be tolerated in the name of protecting corporate profits, and following the Nuremberg principle, I have provided for individual officers to be fined if they have knowingly participated in the distribution of registered hazardous goods. The other lesson that we must draw from such occurrences is that it is somewhat safer to take product prohibitions at face value where there are open processes for deciding overseas, and to reserve the capacity to call for more information or do more testing where disputed approval has been given. Fabrication of test results has been going on for some time now, whether it be the statistically fraudulent techniques of Hugh Davis who for a long time refused to disclose his financial interest in the Dalkon Shield while he promoted it and stressed problems with other forms of contraception, or the outright fraud of chemical-testing-laboratory scientists declaring dangerous chemicals safe. At the same time, we must pay heed to the detection of hazards by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States for instance. There is also the United Nations publication, `Consolidated List of Products whose consumption and/or sale have banned, withdrawn, severely restricted or not approved by governments' which is regularly updated by the United Nations Secretariat. This initiative, opposed only by the United States, followed the adoption on 17 December 1982 of General Assembly resolution 37/137 which sought to bring together as much information as possible on hazardous chemicals and unsafe pharmaceuticals. It is a useful starting point when concern is expressed or allegations are made in Australia, and resources are not available to properly investigate the matter locally. Registration as a hazardous product for up to nine months will act as a lever to encourage manufacturers to provide timely information. The Registrar can initiate such a procedure under the Bill. We would not have situations such as that revealed recently in the Sydney Morning Herald, where Ciba-Geigy undertook in 1979 to remove a carcinogen from a cattle dip and spray, but has not yet got around to it. We might not find Ciba-Geigy reporting chlordimeform farm contamination levels on the basis of analysis of urine taken 24-48 hours after exposure, rather than within the first twelve hours after exposure before the chemical has had a chance to be degraded and excreted. Interestingly, the chemical has been voluntarily withdrawn from the market in New Zealand. It is banned in Cyprus, Pakistan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Thailand. The company sprayed it on teenagers in an open field in Egypt as part of its testing procedures! Other short residue pesticides are apparently available to do just as good a job without the attendant risks of using chlordimeform. This sort of information can at least be put to the manufacturers or distributors for detailed comment. We might have avoided the dumping in Australia of heart valves by Bjork Shiley after the US Food and Drug Administration forbade their sale because evidence was needed that changes in manufacture had not introduced new risks. Apparently our Health Department was under the incorrect impression that the heart valves had investigative status in the United States. That was of little comfort to the relatives of the five Australians who died in 1983 following cardiac surgery, when the defective valves cracked away and crumbled in patients' chests. We do not yet have a class action mechanism to bring this outrage properly to book. We may also have avoided the dumping four or five years ago of baby pacifiers which the US Consumer Product Safety Commission was rejecting. Design faults in the pacifiers posed a risk of babies swallowing them and suffocating. We may have been better prepared when the United State introduced a safety standard for bicycles. Shonky merchants in Taiwan chose Australia as a convenient, nearby dumping ground for what they would no longer be able to clear in America. We had a sudden spate of injuries which resulted from poorly-made equipment collapsing or giving way. The 1984 Federal Court cases against two major retailers who failed to check that their merchandise met safety standards is a salutary reminder that there will always be manufacturers interested only in the quick buck. We must use all the intelligence at the disposal of Austrade and the Department of Foreign Affairs to remain one step ahead of such crooks. In my formulation of prohibitions against the export of registered hazardous products from Australia, I was particularly moved by examples of dumping of products in another country. Some instances where we were the victims I have already alluded to. However, I also want to make sure that there is no repetition of the scandal in 1977 when Nestle continued production in Victoria of breast milk substitutes after routine tests had shown that the plant facilities were contaminated with salmonella. In Australia alone, 134 cases of gastroenteritis were positively identified as caused by the Nestle product, and eighty of those babies needed hospital treatment. We will never know the extent of the damage, to babies, and also to our trading reputation, in South East Asia as a result of this unforgiveable cover-up and corporate irresponsibility. There are grounds for believing that Australia is regularly used as an intermediate point for the disposal of pharmaceuticals which are totally substandard. Dr. John Braithwaite of the Australian National University has pointed to estimates that 15 per cent of the drugs sold illegally in Indonesia are smuggled from Singapore, some via Australia. Just recently Ciba-Geigy agreed to withdraw one of its anti-arthritic pain killers, Tandearil, a brand of oxyphenbutazone, worldwide and to put severe restrictions on the marketing of another, Butazolidin, a popular brand of phenylbutazone. This came three years after a leaked internal memorandum admitted knowledge of over 700 deaths due to use of Butazolidin and over 330 due to Tandearil use even though, respectively, only 72 and 76 deaths had been officially reported in medical literature. Health Action International threatened an international boycott of Ciba-Geigy products if the company continued marketing the two drugs without modification. Consumer groups are still distressed that a product that should only be a drug of last resort may again be inappropriately promoted in the third world. This is what happened with the drug clioquinol which Ciba-Geigy had marketed aggressively in many third world countries and Japan, as a general anti-diarrhoeal agent, despite periodically warning Western veterinarians that clioquinol could lead to epilepsy and death in animals. Clioquinol created tens of thousands of victims of sub-acute myelo-optic neuropathy in Japan: Nearly 1,000 people died and many others were left in severe pain, blind, paraplegic and with irreversible damage to the nervous system. In 1978, a Tokyo District Court concluded that Ciba-Geigy had failed to adequately inform Japanese customers about the nervous system dangers. The company apologised to the victims and their families, and paid over US$150m in compensation, yet it continued to market clioquinol throughout much of the third world for several more years. We must not allow ourselves to become an unwitting party to any unconscionable behaviour of this sort. I am heartened that the Government has moved to close the `for export only' loophole inserted into the Trade Practices Act by the Fraser Government. If goods are hazardous in Australia, they are hazardous elsewhere. We have a moral obligation to stop their further movement. We must also take steps to discourage the US Congress from any inclination to support legislation that would enable the United States pharmaceutical industry to manufacture drugs for export before the Food and Drug Administration had cleared them for domestic consumption. The International Chemical Workers' Union has pointed out how jobs will actually be lost if an unapproved product turns out to be hazardous and the company's reputation takes a battering. There would also be no guarantee that this type of material would not find its way back into the country of origin after a complicated chain of world-wide movements. I am glad that Australia has shown the courage to resist this through the recent amendment to the Trade Practices Legislation. My Bill provides greater protection for ordinary Australians, ensures that our trading reputation will remain high, and provides a means of pooling the meagre resources of the States and the Commonwealth to achieve worthwhile results for consumer safety. I commend both the principles and the Bill to honourable senators and urge them to address the problems of consumer safety with as much vigor as they can muster. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Assent reported. Messages received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the following Bills: Trade Practices Revision Bill 1986 Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1986. Motion (by Senator Chipp) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Chipp moving a motion to give precedence over all other business to the following motion: That the Senate notes- (a) the implications to life and the planet of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in the Soviet Union; (b) the possible contribution to this disaster by Australia in exporting uranium; (c) the possibility that such a disaster could be repeated in other places around the globe; (d) the possible eventual danger to Australia in the event of any disasters; and (e) the need to close all uranium mines in Australia. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That, for the purpose of debating Senator Chipp's proposed motion relating to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders, Senator Chipp and the two Senators next speaking shall not speak for more than 20 minutes each and other Senators shall not speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.45) —I move: That the Senate notes- (a) the implications to life and the planet of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in the Soviet Union; (b) the possible contribution to this disaster by Australia in exporting uranium; (c) the possiblity that such a disaster could be repeated in other places around the globe; (d) the possible eventual danger to Australia in the event of any disasters; and (e) the need to close all uranium mines in Australia. I thank the Government and the Opposition for their co-operation in allowing me to bring on this motion. As Leader of the Australian Democrats I am proud to move this motion. I am disgusted and outraged that, because of collusion between the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party, this Senate will not vote on it. They have got together and, by way of a series of amendments which the Labour Party will move and the Liberal Party will support, they will vote on something entirely different. The Democrats' statement that we should close down all uranium mines will not even be voted on by the Senate because, by sheer weight of numbers-a combination of Labor, Liberal and, of course, National Party, senators-I will be denied the opportunity of having my motion voted on by the Senate. The Senate will not vote on the Democrats' motion that exporting uranium and the Chernobyl disaster represent a danger to the world and to Australia. That is party politics. We must never, ever embarrass ourselves before the electorate! Therefore, we will vote on nothing. Labor, Liberal and National senators may as well amend my motion to state `We love motherhood and we hate sin' or vice versa, so meaningless will they make my motion. That is dirty, nitpicking, petty party politics that the Liberal Party and the Labor Party are playing about something that could threaten the whole fate of this world, that could threaten every innocent woman and child on this planet, including this country. They cannot help playing party politics with it. Because it is a genuine matter the Australian Democrats raise this question of the danger to the world of the disaster at Chernobyl. Why do Liberal and Labor Party senators not have the guts to stand up and say that they believe that uranium should be mined? Why do they not vote on it? Why do they not expose themselves to the people of Australia for what they are? Instead, they will change the motion in a sneaky, underhand way so that they will not even have to vote on that matter. In speaking to this motion I must, with great respect, refer to how little interest has been shown in this chamber and by the Parliament generally in the Chernobyl disaster since it happened. I am distressed that even in the responsible Press little or no mention has been made of the Chernobyl disaster. Today it has gone off the front page, yet not even a week has gone by since it happened. It is off page 2 and page 3. There is an obsession by newspapers, radio and television with the confessions of one Rodney Groux. For goodness sake, Rodney Groux demanded all of the pages in the responsible Press last week, to the exclusion of a disaster that could threaten the whole of humankind. The tax on car perks and flexible wage rates are considered by this Parliament and the media to be more important than the future of the world. There are not only the immediate consequences of the melt down of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, but also the implications for the rest of this planet, and in particular for Australia. I remind the chamber that Australia is one of the largest uranium producers and exporters in the world. Senator Parer —It is not the only one. Senator CHIPP —What a pathetic interjection. Who said it was the only one? It is one of the biggest, and does the honourable senator deny that? Why does the honourable senator not move an amendment to the Labor amendment so that he can have the guts to stand up and say: `I, Senator Parer, support the mining and export of uranium'? Why does he not at least have the guts to vote on it instead of hiding the whole matter as he is doing? There were groans on both sides of the chamber last Thursday at the beginning of both my question and the question of Senator Haines on the nuclear accident. Liberal senators thought that this was not an important matter to raise; it was much more important to go after Mr Justice Murphy, Mr Rodney Groux or some other tremendous trivia. Both sides of the chamber have had a vested interest-the reason is now being exposed-in defending the indefensible, the use of nuclear energy, and the indefensible fuel cycle which leads to the production of nuclear weapons. Both sides have supported the export of Australian uranium and the proliferation of nuclear energy. Chernobyl represents the enormity of the problem of nuclear energy. It is hard to believe, after nearly 40 years of intense anti-nuclear lobbying by anti-nuclear people, when the Democrats have stated for years that a nuclear accident would be a totally new phenomenon, unlike conventional accidents, that only last week we found out that there were fires in at least one, possibly two, reactors and that nothing could be done about them. Humankind could not put the fires out; they had to burn out. It was only this disaster that brought home to people the fact that a man-made disaster of the nuclear kind has to run its course. We cannot turn off the radiation; we cannot stop the cancers; we cannot even dispose of the nuclear waste. Chernobyl is not a question of nasty technologically inferior communist reactors, as some people have tried to make them out to be; it is not a question of communist reactors versus the good, safe, clean Western reactors. This is not fuel for the new Cold War. To treat the reactor meltdown in this way is to miss the real lesson of the accident. This accident is not the first; it just happens to be the biggest so far. Let me give honourable senators a few examples. In 1950 at Chalk River, Canada, a hydrogen explosion caused one death and five people were contaminated. The reactor was destroyed and no follow-up study was made of the long-term health effects. In 1957 at Chelyabinsk in the Soviet Urals a nuclear waste dump explosion caused unknown deaths and long term consequences. We do know that 60,000 people were relocated, 30 towns were eliminated and 16,000 square kilometres and 14 lakes were contaminated. In 1957 at Windscale, England, a massive release of radiation from a fuel fire occurred. The fallout area included Ireland, Belgium and West Germany. The nearby town of Seascale suffered a tenfold increase in the national average of leukaemia cases and significant increases in Down's syndrome children. In 1961 at Idaho Falls in the United States of America three were killed, one gruesomely. In 1966 at Fermi, Detroit, in the US a fast breeder reactor had a partial meltdown to the point where an explosion was imminent, and 66,000 lives could have been lost immediately and the city of Detroit laid to waste. In 1979 at Three Mile Island in the US a reactor had a 20 per cent meltdown. A total disaster worse than Chernobyl could have occurred had the temperature increased by only a further 8 1/2 per cent. This could have happened anywhere, with any reactor in the world. Even if it were agreed to increase international inspection of nuclear power reactors the accidents would still happen. It could, where a crack was discovered, lead to the closing of a reactor but it could not stop the accidents caused by human error. Unless this nuclear insanity is halted there will be many more Chernobyls. One 1982 study carried out for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission calculated that on the history of operating experience between 1969 and 1979 a major accident could occur every 200 to 600 reactor years. Given the 350 reactors operating in the world, we could now face a major nuclear accident every 20 months. The other vital 1982 study for the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded that it was possible that a US reactor accident similar to the one at Chernobyl could cause 100,000 deaths in a year and property damage in excess of $A300 billion. To say that it could not happen in the West is to fly in the face of all the facts. So far the commentators have said there were two weak points in this nasty, communist reactor which do not exist in the good reactors of the Western world. The commentators say that the two weak points were that firstly the communist reactor used graphite and, secondly, it had no containment shell. Let us have a look at those two points. Firstly, in relation to the use of graphite, James Landis, Senior Vice-President of Stone and Webster, a Boston-based engineering firm that builds nuclear plants, said that the Chernobyl accident `is the worst kind . . . and any reactor that has graphite is susceptible'. Wait for it: Australia's own Lucas Heights has a two-feet thick wall of graphite, acting as a neutron reactor, surrounding the fuel assembly. This, together with the fact that Lucas Heights is 27 years old, makes the reactor a real safety risk. As the US study I referred to earlier indicates, graphite or no graphite a similar accident to that at Chernobyl could occur in the US or somewhere else. Secondly, let us look at the lack of a containment shell-the second point attributed to the riskiness of the Soviet communist reactor. Nuclear reactors on warships have only minimal containment shells, if any at all. So in the event of a meltdown any containment shell on a ship's nuclear reactor would not make any difference. All the nuclear-powered ships visiting our ports-the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia welcome them with open arms-are similarly vulnerable and pose safety threats to this nation's population centres. This accident could quite easily have occurred in the US, in Britain, in France or at Lucas Heights or indeed in any Australian port. Can we begin to contemplate what a disaster Chernobyl is for Russia? The area affected by the meltdown produces 5 per cent of the Soviet Union's wheat and oats, 24 per cent of its rye, 11 per cent of its meat and potatoes, 13 per cent of its milk and 6 per cent of its eggs. The rich black soil of the Ukraine is still black, but it is now the blackness of death. A 30 kilometres radius-at least-around Chernobyl will be unusable for generations. The death of large numbers of people from radiation will peak in another two weeks and go on for two weeks after that. The cancers will begin and the genetic effects will haunt us for generations. For what motive? For greed. Yet every member of the Labor Party in this place as well as every member of the Liberal Party and the National Party in this place saying: `Let's have more reactors; let's export our uranium'. At least that is what they say when the Australian Democrats put up a motion in this chamber to ban the export of uranium. That is what they say when the Democrats move in this place to ban the import of nuclear hardware. What of Australia's responsibilities? Australian uranium is sold in Europe-to Finland, Sweden, West Germany, Belgium and France. Let us take Finland, for example. All Australian uranium sold to Finland is shipped directly to France, where it is converted into uranium hexafluoride. This is then sent where? To the Soviet Union, for enrichment. What hypocrisy, what humbug, for people to say that Russia is our enemy, and yet we allow our uranium to be shipped via Finland and France to it. After that, the fuel rod fabrication is carried out in West Germany or Sweden. Based on what the Government has been at pains to tell us is an all-in, all-out basis-whatever the hell that means-what goes into the Soviet Union at the enrichment stage is uranium hexafluoride but what comes out is U235, for nuclear energy, and the tails-U238. The Democrats say that the tails-that is, the by-product of the production of U235-is then sent to France to be used as a blanket for the French Super Phoenix fast breeder reactor used in the production of plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. France produces each year 330 kilograms of plutonium, which is sufficient for up to 60 nuclear bombs each year. Yet we have the hypocrisy to blame France for exploding nuclear devices in the Pacific when we are, directly or indirectly, exporting to France the stuff that allows those nuclear bombs to be made. This is not hypothesis, it is official information from the governments involved. So much for the double speak and cant of the Australian Government and the Australian Opposition, who say that no Australian uranium ever finishes up in nuclear weapons. Of course it does. It finishes up as French nuclear bombs. As for our flashy safeguards, an officer from the Australian Safeguards Office-this is cute-a person entrusted with guarding us on the safeguards issue, made a statement in 1985 saying that the contract between Finland and the Soviet Union for enrichment had expired and that no more Australian uranium sold to Finland would be enriched in the Soviet Union. One wonders how safe we are if we have safety officers making such idiotic statements of misinformation. Not only Finland but other of Australia's customers send fuel to the Soviet Union for enrichment under contracts going back to the mid-1960s. France, Germany, Britain and Sweden all send their uranium to Russia for enrichment. There is one common denominator of those countries-all of them happen to be Australia's customers. Yet we still have the hypocrisy to say we do not send our uranium to Russia. Not only are Australian safeguards officers apparently misinformed but also the agreements themselves are ridiculous. All Australian safeguards agreements include a clause which says that in the event of non-compliance the offending receiver country has to return all nuclear materials. Presumably they have to give us back our yellowcake. The Australian Government should now immediately on that basis ask France to return our yellowcake. Can anybody here really see that happening? It is a ridiculous situation. In answer to Senator Haines's question last week, Senator Evans said: I believe we do have an obligation to supply uranium to those countries dependent on nuclear power for a substantial proportion of their energy needs. A number of quite serious questions arise out of this rather quaint statement. According to Senator Evans, we have a legal obligation through the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to supply uranium. Under Article VI of that Treaty we also have a legal obligation, as do the super-powers, to: pursue negotiations in good faith . . . for the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. This is a legal obligation and, given the facts I have just presented-that through the enrichment process Australian uranium is at least used in the production of French nuclear bombs-we are in reality breaking the NPT through the selling of our uranium. Secondly, Senator Evans said that we have an obligation to sell uranium to countries that are dependent on nuclear power for a substantial proportion of their needs. How dependent-100 per cent, 50 per cent or 20 per cent? He has not said. On what basis are we selective? Do we draw the line at some, or does a so-called moral and legal obligation extend also to Egypt, Yugoslavia, Taiwan and Iraq, who are NPT signatories with nuclear energy needs? This Government draws the moral and legal line where it suits it, and the only line that suits it is the making of a quick buck. The Opposition has exactly the same policy. Thirdly, when is a country dependent for a substantial proportion on nuclear energy? If this Government says that we have to provide nuclear energy to those nations which are dependent on it for a substantial proportion, what is the proportion it operates on? For too long this Government has been able to hide behind a lot of generalisations and mumbo-jumbo. If it is to export uranium, surely it has an obligation to the people of Australia to say to whom and on what basis, and that it is not just for money. Again, the Government decides where it will draw the line, and it is a line based on convenience and greed. I began this speech by referring to the massive lack of interest in this matter which threatens life on this planet. It is a matter which could block out all forms of life for centuries. We have an opportunity to begin to deal with this matter at the Australian Labor Party Federal Conference. It can do so without shame in the light of Chernobyl. It can draw the right conclusions from this disaster. The reality of Hiroshima, Chernobyl and Windscale is that those who have a flat learning curve will finish up on the nuclear scrapheap of history. The tragedy is that they will take the rest of the world and many innocent people with them. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.03) — The quality and the level of responsibility of Senator Chipp's rhetoric in the contribution we have just heard can be gauged by giving just one example of a comprehensive and indeed dangerously misleading misstatement. I am referring in particular to Senator Chipp's reference to the HIFAR reactor, the research reactor in Australia and Australia's only nuclear reactor, as having graphite as an essential component in it and therefore being indistinguishable in some relevant respect in Senator Chipp's statement from the Chernobyl reactor, which is the subject of this motion. It is of course the case-I spelt it out in detail in answer to a question from his own colleague Senator Mason on 30 April-that there is simply no comparison whatever between the Australian reactor and the Russian one that has been the subject of this calamitous accident. The construction is entirely different with heavy water, which of course is not combustible at all, rather than graphite being used as the moderator in the Australian reactor. The only graphite contained in HIFAR is a neutron reflecting layer which is outside the reactor vessel. Senator Sanders —Graphite is a neutron absorbent. Senator GARETH EVANS —We have had enough illustrations today of Senator Sanders's understanding of technical things and his responsibility in addressing matters of fact. Let me answer this matter. This graphite layer is not exposed to sufficient fast neutron flux levels to make it even conceivable that those conditions of heat and radioactivity would combine to create the kind of situation here that has developed elsewhere. It is not conceivable scientifically that that could occur. It is also the case that HIFAR operates at a power level of only about one three-hundredth of that of the Soviet reactor, as I also told Senator Mason. It is not a pressurised system. As one physicist was widely reported as saying, even if something did go drastically wrong with the HIFAR reactor-which does not seem possible, given the safety systems; but even if it did-the chances of that causing serious harm would be about the same as being electrocuted by a torch battery. For Senator Chipp to create the impression in the community for those who happen to have been listening to him that there is some prospect in Australia of Australia's one nuclear research reactor creating the same kind of disaster as has obviously occurred in the Soviet Union is sheer irresponsibility on his behalf. It should also be acknowledged on the same point that the only other graphite moderated water cooled reactor in the world is a research one at Hanford in the United States of America operated by the United States Department of Energy. It is that combination of a graphite moderator system and a water cooling that is unique and uniquely dangerous about the Soviet system, particularly in the absence of backup safety systems. Senator Sanders —What about Windscale? Senator GARETH EVANS —Why do I bother? Windscale is a completely different system. It has graphite in it but not the same cooling mechanism; it is a gas reactor, as Senator Sanders ought to know but clearly does not. But that does not stop his prejudice, emotion and the stream of nonsense that emerges from him. Let me return to the terms of the motion, having demonstrated by that one example-and there are many more I could pick from the speech-just how irresponsible, inaccurate, extravagant, misleading and misguided the Democrat motion is. There is one part of it with which the Government does of course agree, namely: The Senate notes the implications to life and the planet of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident in the Soviet Union. Those implications are very grave, profound and certainly deserve to be noted, and noted with great seriousness, by this Senate, in exactly the same terms in which the motion at least to this extent has been moved by the Australian Democrats. Although the situation appears to have stabilised at the Chernobyl reactor, it is manifestly serious. It is difficult for us, on the information available to us still at this stage, to assess just how serious it was. Though it is important not to extravagantly overexagerate what may have been the case until we know the reality, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the most serious nuclear accident in the history of this technology has in fact occurred, with grave consequences not only for the health and safety of those in the vicinity but clearly for a great many people in both eastern and western Europe. We deplore that that has occurred. We deplore that obvious weakness in the safety systems and the administration and everything else. We deplore the secrecy that has been associated with this by the Soviets from the first day, and there are many lessons to be drawn in weighing and evaluating that accident. So far as Australia is concerned, there is no evidence to suggest that the plume of radioactivity from the accident has reached the upper atmosphere. Further, the spread of radioactivity appears confined to surface wind systems and it will probably be 12 to 18 months before there is any movement of contamination at all from the accident across the equatorial belt. In the meantime, the radioactive contamination will be reduced by natural decay and wash-out by rain and it is not expected that readily detectable levels will reach Australia. In response to the suggestion that will be picked up later in an Opposition amendment about the need to establish a full inquiry within Australia as to the Chernobyl disaster and its implications for Australia as well as for the world so far as nuclear technology is concerned, I would mention that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has established an internal task group to examine all available information on the accident and its consequences. I believe that that may well go most of the way, if not all the way, towards satisfying the Opposition request, which it wants to add to the terms of this motion, to establish a task force of suitably qualified experts to advise the Government in carrying out the terms of the resolution. At this stage the AAEC task group is receiving and analysing overseas reports through Australia's diplomatic contacts. I understand that it is due to produce at least a preliminary report within a week. It is certainly my intention to make public, as soon as may be, the Atomic Energy Commission's assessment. We would certainly be happy, with the expertise we have, to make it available to anyone elsewhere who wants it, but it has to be acknowledged that our capacity to assist is quite limited as we have had no experience anywhere in this country of operating reactors of the type used at Chernobyl or in the operation of any commercial nuclear-powered reactors of any type. The second part of Senator Chipp's motion refers to the possible contribution to this disaster by Australia in exporting uranium. The terms of the Government's amending motion, which I have circulated in this place and which I will formally move at the end of my speech, make it clear that the way the second part of the Democrats' motion has been couched is simply not acceptable. What we would prefer to say, and in this respect we accept the Opposition's amendment to our original proposal, is: . . . that the policies of successive governments mean Australia makes no contribution to the USSR's supply of nuclear material; We acknowledge, as I have said in Question Time in answer to questions from the Democrats, that some of our uranium customer countries may wish to use the uranium enrichment facilities in the USSR. It is the case that Finland and Sweden, both customers for Australian uranium, have used those enrichment facilities. Australia permits enrichment of consignments of Australian origin nuclear material in the USSR on behalf of our safeguards treaty partners on an all-in all-out basis. Senator Chipp expressed some bemusement at what that concept meant. It simply means that under this arrangement both the enriched uranium and the depleted uranium tails which are left over as a result of the enrichment process must be removed from the USSR and returned to a country which has a nuclear safeguards agreement with Australia where the material can then be accounted for by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Senator Chipp —Are you happy about how that is checked? Senator GARETH EVANS —I would be delighted for Senator Chipp and his colleagues to get a full appreciation of how the nuclear accounting system works by visiting the Australian Safeguards Office in Sydney. Senator Sanders —You don't know. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sick of this lunatic assertion that I do not know, that the Government does not know, that the Australian Safeguards Office does not know, that the International Atomic Energy Agency does not know where Australian origin nuclear material is. The nuclear accounting system is such that we can account for every portion of the material that goes into that country and comes out again, on the principle of equivalence. We can account for it. We have accounted for it. I have the information available. I will be happy to put it on the record tomorrow in answer to the honourable senator, describing with some precision all the different weights, measures and volumes of Australian origin nuclear material and where it has ended up. Of course that information is available. Our system is a sophisticated one. It works very well. We are quite conscientious in our application of the international safeguards system. No reasoned argument in the world can combat the kind of emotionalism that is wafting across me at the moment from the other side of the chamber. I do not intend to respond, except to say that I reject utterly the constant assertion, which Senator Sanders has been parroting away all day, that we do not know where this material is. We know perfectly well that it is not in the USSR. Senator Sanders —Do you know that it is not in France? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will be happy to answer any further questions at the end of the day. I want to get on with the business of answering this debate. The principle of all-in all-out which applies very effectively precludes the possibility of any nuclear material of Australian origin remaining in the USSR and provisions of that kind are incorporated in our nuclear safeguards agreement with Finland, Sweden, Euratom and Switzerland. I think that sufficiently answers that point. The third part of the Democrats' motion concerns the possibility that such a disaster could be repeated in other places around the globe. What we propose, bearing in mind what I said earlier about the unique character of Soviet technology, is that a more constructive way of expressing that point is to say that the Australian Government will pursue all opportunities for further strengthening of international co-operation in this area, including the possibility of mandatory international safety standards to minimise the possibility that such a disaster could be repeated in other places around the globe. We do not acknowledge that a disaster of this type could be repeated elsewhere because the technology is so conspicuously different and the safety standards are so obviously conspicuously different elsewhere where there is a nuclear energy industry. The accident at Chernobyl has, of course, made the safety of nuclear facilities a very prominent issue. It is quite appropriate that that should be so. But I think we can do better in strengthening international co-operation in this respect. Australia is perfectly happy to do its utmost to generate that extra degree of international co-operation. There is much more I could say in detail about this matter but for the moment I think that is probably sufficient. We have certainly supported a whole variety of initiatives through the International Atomic Energy Agency on a bilateral basis, and on a multilateral basis through the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and we will go on doing so. The fourth part of the Chipp motion refers to `the possible eventual danger to Australia in the event of any disasters'. Again, that is something of a misreading of the present situation in the light of, as I said, the evidence available to us about the supreme unlikelihood that readily detectable radiation levels will reach Australia as a result of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Senator Chipp —Why didn't you let the Senate vote on that? Why did you remove it from the motion? Senator GARETH EVANS —We will still be able to vote for it. I am moving it by way of an amendment to Senator Chipp's motion. If he does not like it, he can vote on his own. We prefer to put it in the following terms `while there is no cause for concern' because we do not want to generate concern, alarm or anxiety in the community at large. We are a little more responsible than Senator Chipp and his colleagues who are prepared to say and do anything to generate a quick, populist response and not a clear understanding of what the issues are. Against that background, we would prefer to word this part of the motion differently, as follows: . . . while there is no cause for concern that fall-out from the Chernobyl accident will present any hazard in Australia, it is essential that this country continue to maintain adequate systems to monitor levels from all sources of radioactivity which may present a public health hazard . . . In that respect let me say for the record that in Australia a radiation monitoring system has been operating since the mid-1950s. Samples of fall-out are collected routinely from sampling stations across Australia and analysed at the Australian Radiation Laboratory in Melbourne. Periodically milk samples are also analysed. These monitoring systems are considered to be adequate to meet the current, or any other possible future, circumstances and the Government will ensure that they are maintained. The final part of the Chipp motion is about the need to close all uranium mines in Australia. This is at odds with the present Government's uranium policy. I will explain in a moment why that policy exists and why we believe it must be maintained. Clearly, Senator Chipp's motion is unacceptable to the extent that it amounts to a head-on confrontation with that policy. More constructively we would prefer to say in this respect that the Senate notes: . . . the Government's resolve to pursue in international forums the establishment of a mandatory system requiring nations in which similar accidents occur to notify other countries which may be affected, at the first opportunity and in the fullest possible detail. There is an obvious need, in the aftermath of this accident and, in particular, the utterly indefensible secrecy which surrounded it, to have an international regime operating in which we would hope that every country in the world co-operated and which made at least provision for a recording system and a capacity as a result for an emergency response associated with it. We believe, as I said earlier, that there is a need for international arrangements in the nuclear safety field to be further pursued, particularly in the areas I have just mentioned of early warning and emergency assistance. We are now examining the most effective way of promoting multilateral measures of this kind. We recognise the difficulties involved because many countries, including, in particular, the non-Western regimes, are not prepared, or have not been prepared so far, to accept mandatory arrangements. But we believe that there are opportunities for pursuing further international co-operation in this area. Some steps are already under way in international forums in response to the accident. I advise the Senate, for example, that the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations is convening a special meeting this Friday, 9 May, to discuss the possible impact of the accident on OECD countries. Australia will be represented at that meeting. I heard on the news earlier today that the Director-General of the IAEA, Dr Blix, has been invited, I think, to the USSR to be briefed on the accident. As a result he will then be in a position to report upon it to the IAEA. That meeting of the Board of Governors of the IAEA in June will provide an opportunity for effective debate on this issue. It is a major topic of discussion at the present Tokyo economic summit meeting. There is an expectation that there will be a communique today expressing the need for, among other things, mandatory reporting of nuclear accidents. I know that bilaterally Australia and Japan have already had discussions. In my discussions a few days ago with the Japanese Minister for Science and Technology we discussed the need for international co-operation in securing mandatory reporting arrangements of this kind. Finally, let me say something about the Government's uranium mining policy and how it contrasts rationally with Senator Chipp's demand, in the final paragraph of his motion, to close all uranium mines in Australia. No government has looked more closely at this issue or had to justify its position under closer political scrutiny than has the Hawke Labor Government. That is well known. A number of points could be made but I really have time to make only one. It is not a matter of selling uranium in order, as Senator Chipp would rather churlishly and inappropriately say, to make a fast buck at any cost, whatever the consequences. We are selling uranium because the contribution we make to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy is something that might be regarded as desirable from the point of view of an energy starved world, and one that will not get any less energy starved in the years ahead with the depletion of oil and other more readily accessible fuels; but it is not only for that kind of reason. It is not even because of the greater responsibility we bring to the selling of our uranium than is the case with any other supplier in the world or because of the much more meticulous attention we devote to safeguard regimes to ensure that that material is used for peaceful and not for military purposes, although we do have an extraordinarily meticulous regime. Overwhelmingly, the reason is that we see it as a corollary of our acute and intense commitment to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I have said it before and the Government has said it before but it bears repetition over and again: The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to which we are all committed in every part of this chamber is a commitment that involves reciprocal obligations. It involves an obligation on the part of the nuclear weapons states not to supply nuclear weapons technology or material to any other country to proliferate in that way and an obligation on its non-weapons signatories not to develop nuclear weapons technology and not to accept the supply of nuclear weapons material in that way. The third part, where Australia comes in as well as at the second leg, is the obligation it imposes on all states, both weapons states and otherwise, to co-operate peacefully in the supply and exchange of raw materials and peaceful nuclear technology. That is an Australian commitment. It is one that we are obliged to honour and one that we are proud to go on honouring. I therefore move the following amendment to Senator Chipp's motion: Leave out all words after paragraph (a), insert `(b) that the Government's policies mean Australia makes no contribution to the USSR's supply of nuclear material; (c) that the Australian Government will pursue all opportunities for further strengthening of international co-operation in the area of mandatory international safety standards to minimise the possibility that such a disaster could be repeated in other places around the globe; (d) that while there is no cause for concern that fall-out from the Chernobyl accident will present any hazard in Australia, it is essential that this country continue to maintain adequate systems to monitor levels from all sources of radioactivity which may present a public health hazard; and (e) the Government's resolve to pursue in international forums the establishment of a mandatory system requiring nations in which similar accidents occur to notify other countries which may be affected, at the first opportunity and in the fullest possible detail'. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.23) —It is unfortunate that we have some strict time limit on this debate because this matter is of very grave importance to the world and to Australia. It is one of the most important debates we have ever held in the Senate. It is a debate about the incident that occurred over a week ago in Chernobyl in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That incident has attracted the most intense and massive interest throughout the world, and no less so in Australia. I was very surprised when Senator Chipp berated the world in general for what he called a massive lack of interest in this subject. I believe there was very properly a great interest in the subject expressed throughout last week and it will continue to be expressed because the implications of this disaster at Chernobyl have clear signals and dangers for all the world. It has implications not simply for the Russian people and their immediate neighbours, serious and all though it is for people in Poland and Scandinavia. We have heard the reports of the effects on those neighbouring countries and the people in them. There are also implications for Europe and the rest of the world. Although Australia and New Zealand are about as remote from the immediate problem as anywhere in the world, nevertheless there are clear implications and concerns for Australia and Australians. There is and will continue to be a great interest in this matter. This debate in the Senate today has been initiated by Senator Chipp. It was introduced by him in a very emotional and in many respects non-factual speech which in my opinion has not assisted the sort of careful and rational consideration of this issue that is required. We in the Opposition appreciate that it is an emotional issue but we believe that it will not be solved by emotionalism. It is an issue which goes very deeply indeed to our future on this planet, to everybody's future on earth. Although, as I have said, we are very remote from it, it clearly has implications for Australia. The question really is: What could or should be done about the problem? That is not resolved or helped by the type of emotional and at times almost hysterical outbursts that came from Senator Chipp when he introduced this motion today. The subject of Senator Chipp's motion, which I will deal with in some detail later in my speech, should have been raised by the Government last week and debated then. I was waiting for such a debate and was somewhat surprised that last week went by without a formal Government statement being put down. I know that the Government would have had difficulty in providing any more information about this problem than we were reading in the Press, but it could have said what it was doing about the problem. For instance, we could have been told about the internal task force in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission which Senator Evans has now revealed was set up last week and which the Government expects will report to it shortly. It was the Government's responsibility to initiate in the Parliament what could have been a preliminary debate on this subject. Certainly, the issue is of such importance that it would have been far better for this debate to have been initiated in that way, for the Government to have assumed that responsibility, than for us to be debating the issue now in the terms of Senator Chipp's motion. By and large, Senator Chipp's motion is one which the Opposition cannot support, nor indeed can the Government. Senator Chipp's motion expresses a highly emotive and irrational attitude to this very grave problem. It will not solve the problem. The only suggestion in his motion is that we should immediately close all uranium mines in Australia. How on earth any rational thinking person faced with the enormity of the problem throughout the world, and particularly throughout the Northern Hemisphere, can believe that that can be solved simply by Australia's closing all uranium mines is beyond my comprehension. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator DURACK —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was dealing with the problem facing Australia and the world from the implications of the Chernobyl disaster in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics a week or more ago. I was saying that this massive problem for the world, of which we are a part, will be resolved not by hysteria or emotion but by calm and rational judgments about the nature of the disaster, the nature of the world in which we live and what are reasonable and practicable solutions. The fact is that the nuclear industry is well and truly with us and is not going to go away. Nuclear power for peaceful purposes is of enormous importance to millions and millions of people in the world, and probably will be of growing importance to those people. It may not be of immediate importance to us in Australia because we enjoy such vast energy resources, other than nuclear power, and demand is such that our needs can be met by other means. I quote from a recent publication of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, entitled `Nuclear Power and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle-Status Report 1985', which states: Nuclear power now accounts for about 13% of the electricity produced in the world, with France and Belgium generating over 50% of their electricity by nuclear power in 1984. At the end of 1984 there were 318 power reactors . . . in commercial operation in 26 countries . . . We are now talking about one in Chernobyl. The publication further states: A further 226 reactors . . . are under construction or on order. In the same publication is a chapter headed `The Place of Nuclear Power' which canvasses the alternatives to nuclear power; oil, coal, hydro- electric power in particular and gas as well. It comes to this conclusion: Limited installation of oil and gas fired capacity may occur as a short term expedient, but the choice of new generating plant in many countries is now almost entirely between coal and nuclear energy. It goes on to say that it has been estimated that coal has the potential to provide between one-half and two-thirds of the additional energy that will be needed by the world in the next few decades and also discusses the various restraints and limitations that there are upon coal as alone being able to meet the needs of the world for electric power. So that is the world in which we are living, whether we like it or not. A number of us do not like that situation, and the Australian Democrats in particular do not like it. They think that they can just wish it away by these pious statements that these problems can be resolved by closing all uranium mines in Australia. Senator Chipp said that the Opposition did not have the guts to vote in favour of uranium mining. What a total travesty that is of the position of the Opposition. We have said over and over again that uranium mining must continue in Australia. Whether we like it or not, there will be a growing demand for uranium for the nuclear industry in the world. That industry will remain and grow, whether we like it or not. The figures that I have just quoted-- Senator Sanders —What a defeatist attitude. Senator DURACK —Senator Sanders can put his head in the sand, where he mostly lives, but that will not solve the problem at all. The facts and figures show that there will be this continuing need and demand for uranium for peaceful purposes. Australia may have very large reserves of uranium-something like a quarter of the western world's reserves-but there is plenty of other uranium in the world to satisfy the needs in the next few decades of this nuclear industry, which will stay whether we like it or not. Therefore the only sensible and rational course for the world to pursue and for Australians as part of the world- Senator Sanders —That is like saying that your kids have to work 10 hours a day. You can change anything you want. Senator DURACK —It is all very well for Senator Sanders, who apparently has decided that he will escape from the United States of America, from where he comes, to Tasmania in the hope that he will get as far away from the rest of the world as he can. The fact is that he cannot escape; nobody can escape from living in the world as it is. We have to tackle the problem and try to cope with it and solve it in a rational way. The Australian Democrats' motion simply does not do that. The policy of the Opposition for some time has been stated to be: We will work, in conjunction with the International Atomic Energy Agency, to promote improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of its safeguards operations and encourage other member countries to do the same. We will maintain an active role in the maintenance of high international standards of safety and surveillance in the industry and in the improvement of those standards where necessary. Australia imposes standards higher than the minimum currently laid down internationally, and we will press for the extension of Australian standards to all user and supplier countries. It was one of the major initiatives and decisions of the Fraser Government to institute rigid safeguards standards as a condition for the supply of Australian uranium. That is why it is simply not true, as the Democrats assert in their motion, that Australia may have contributed to this disaster by exporting uranium. Because of the policies pursued by the Fraser Government and continued by the present Hawke Government, it is simply not possible under our safeguards policies that any Australian uranium would be able to be used in the Soviet Union. Under the umbrella of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons we have established safeguards which are higher than those standards which have been in place. It may well be that there ought to be a further development in the world community, through and under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for higher standards of control and monitoring of safety standards. Safeguards are one thing. They deal with preventing the diversion of uranium for non-peaceful means. The other standard which is required-recognised by the Government in its amendment, with which the Opposition will agree-is that there ought to be a build-up of the powers and resources of the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor and enforce international standards relating to safety. That is a weakness in the present situation, despite a great deal of work that has been done by both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency on the establishment of safety standards. We should work towards encouraging the international community to give a greater role to the International Atomic Energy Agency in safety areas. Therefore, we support the Government's proposal. We also believe that it is disgraceful that the Soviet Union did not alert the world, particularly its neighbours, to what had happened at Chernobyl. It did not even admit it for two or three days after it had happened. Clearly, there is need for a system of mandatory requirement to advise neighbouring countries and international agencies of any incidents that may occur, not simply of disasters but of any incidents which may occur of significance. If there is anything like an accident on the scale of Chernobyl, or anything far less than that of Chernobyl, these should be advised, by the country concerned and its nuclear industry, to an international safety body so that immediate action can be taken by other people in the world. These incidents are not simply the business of the country concerned; they are the business not only of its neighbours but of the whole world. We believe that the Government should establish a body which can operate in international fora, where these matters should be discussed, to implement the policies which this Government has asked us to note that it will adopt, and with which we agree. We have pursued similar policies. As our policies continue to improve on the international control of safety standards, we believe that the Government should establish a task force of suitably qualified independent experts to advise the Government in carrying out the terms of this amendment and to report their advice to the Parliament. As I said earlier in this debate, the Government should have taken the initiative in making a statement to this Parliament and in initiating this debate. I believe that the Government has set out, in its amendment, the right approach. The Government has been deficient in not having even told us that it had established a task force in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. We learned that tonight from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). But I think a wider task force is required than one simply from within the Commission. It should have qualified, independent experts, drawn from universities or from other bodies in Australia, advising the Government on how to design, carry out, and further the international standards which are required and which, undoubtedly, will be the subject of a great deal more debate in the international community. Finally, the advice from that body of experts should be made known and reported to this Parliament so that we can keep this matter under constant review. On behalf of the Opposition, I move the following amemdments to the Government's proposed amendment: (1) Proposed new paragraph (b), leave out `Government's policies', insert: `policies of successive governments'. (2) After proposed new paragraph (e), add: `, and in the opinion of the Senate the Government should establish a task force of suitably qualified independent experts to advise the Government in carrying out the terms of this resolution and to report their advice to the Parliament'. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(8.13) —First, I would like to commend the motion and to thank the Australian Democrats for bringing this issue to the Senate. It is one which certainly needs debate, and perhaps, as Senator Durack has just said, the Government should have been instrumental in bringing this debate forward; but I am very grateful that the Australian Democrats did that. I think that we need to learn a lot of lessons from the disaster at Chernobyl. It seems to me, however, from what I have heard in the debate so far, that we have the Government and the Opposition agreeing with each other on many principles in this debate and not really opening their minds to learn from it. So perhaps the greatest disaster that will last from this accident is that we did not learn anything from it. The world's people should be looking at the basic philosophy of the nuclear industry and realising that it is too inherently dangerous to continue with. Instead of that, so far we have heard the Government and the Opposition both reaffirming their fixed positions. They do not seem to be opening their minds to the issue or to be learning from the tragic consequences which could flow from this disaster. I implore honourable senators who follow me in this debate to open their minds and to think creatively about the lessons that should be learned from this disaster. I deplore the secrecy which has surrounded this accident so far. The Soviet Union deserves to be severely criticised for its secrecy in the way it has dealt with this problem. It is clearly an example of technology out of control. The experts are baffled. For years the anti-nuclear lobby has been talking about the inadequate measures for the disposal of radioactive contaminated left-overs from the nuclear industry. Now we see very clearly the demonstration that the experts are completely befuddled about what to do in the case of emergencies. There are no adequate provisions for emergencies when nuclear reactors go out of control. It must also be very clearly pointed out that there is a clear link between the nuclear industry for generation of civil power and the nuclear weapons industry, that that link is inextricable, that the nuclear power industry was first promoted by people who wanted to use the by-products of the nuclear industry for producing weapons grade material. Senator Archer —What rubbish! Senator Walsh —Utter rubbish! Senator VALLENTINE —The industry was heavily subsidised in the United States right from the beginning, from the days of the Manhattan Project on. The nuclear power industry has been a front, the respectable front for the nuclear weapons industry. Senator Walsh —Don't any of you crazies ever learn about technological facts? Senator VALLENTINE —That is absolutely irrefutable, despite the interjections that are coming from the Australian Labor Party at the moment, and it shows that the Labor Party is totally unable to look at this issue in the wider sense. If Senator Walsh does not understand that there is an inextricable link between the nuclear weapons industry and the nuclear power industry it shows an abysmal lack of knowledge about the whole situation. The nuclear power industry world-wide must rethink its commitment to this potentially disastrous form of energy generation. It is useless to compare this form of energy generation-- Senator Walsh —You were in the Country Party when conscripts were being sent to Vietnam. Senator VALLENTINE —And where were you? Senator Walsh —Opposing it in the Labor Party-opposing the war. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order, Senator Walsh. Senator Vallentine, please address your remarks through the Chair. Senator VALLENTINE —I have heard in this place recently honourable senators comparing the problems that have emanated from the nuclear power industry with those emanating from the generation of energy by the coal industry and other forms of energy generation. It is not a fair comparison, although there are many problems which arise from the use of coal power and other forms of energy generation. But, the fact remains that there is a qualitative difference between the problems which other forms of energy generation create and those created by nuclear energy. There is no other form of energy that has the potential to damage future generations in the way that the nuclear industry does. It was a shame indeed to hear a medical practitioner saying that-without paying sufficient attention to the medical problems which the radioactive contamination from such accidents or from the mining and milling of uranium cause to the human body. That is the problem which is passed from generation to generation unlike any accidents caused by other forms of energy generation. If all of the resources in terms of finances and brainpower had been put into seeking alternative forms of energy instead of pouring billions of dollars into this form of energy, we would by now have a safe alternative form of energy which the world could feel secure about using. Australia should be leading the world in solar energy research. We are blindly following other nations' immoral paths without much independent thought of the significance of the contribution which our nation could have made to a lot of breakthroughs in solar energy technology. The only problem with solar energy is that neither Westinghouse Electric Corporation nor General Electric can manage to wrap a blanket around the sun so they can sell holes in it, and that is the problem. Multinational or transnational companies seek to exploit the world's need for energy to suit their primary motive-and that is the god of profit. The other major stumbling block is the nuclear weapons industries' insatiable need for plutonium extracted from civil reactors for their nuclear weapons programs. In this debate I want to focus on the Australian connections. I want to talk about uranium mining, which in itself is a dangerous occupation. The mining, milling and exporting of uranium poses many environmental hazards and health hazards to the workers involved in the industry. There are many examples, particularly in the United States where the uranium industry has been going on for long enough for the long-term consequences to show up, in terms of leukaemia and cancers, which show that uranium mining itself is a very dangerous occupation for those involved. Senator Crichton-Browne —What about coal mining? Senator VALLENTINE —I have talked about coal mining already. If the honorable senator did not listen to that, he should have been listening. There are also many problems involved with the transport of uranium once it is mined, milled and exported, and that is the basis of Australia's involvement. I would like to mention just a couple of instances of accidents involving the transport of uranium and nuclear materials in general. In December 1968 an entire ship carrying a consignment of uranium oxide disappeared in the Mediterranean Sea and later turned up in a Turkish port, minus its crew and its 200-tonne cargo. It is widely believed that Israel used the uranium to fuel its weapons complex at Dimona. In 1977 a train carrying uranium hexafluoride was derailed in North Carolina. It took rescue teams over seven hours to determine how much radiation was leaking from canisters and, when high readings were measured by military personnel, they fled the scene. In September of the same year 40,000 pounds of yellowcake was allowed to remain on the ground while State officials, the company and the trucking firm bickered over whose job it was to clean up the mess. So much for the safety of transporting uranium. Uranium is transported around the world in increasing quantities because there are 374 nuclear powered generators in operation and there are also in operation 352 reactors on board ships belonging to the world's navies. In total, there are 726 opportunities for disaster of the type that we have just seen in the Ukraine in the last week-726 potential time bombs either moving around the world in the world's navies or housed in the various countries that are part of the nuclear industry. There are 26 countries involved in the nuclear industry and fourteen of those countries have identified severe problems. I am sure that other speakers who follow me will talk more about the accidents that have happened in other places, but I want to draw into the debate the problem that is faced by many people in Australia who live in ports which are visited by nuclear powered warships. Nuclear powered warships visit Australian ports in increasing numbers. Up until 1979 only 7 per cent of warships from the United States of America coming to Australia were nuclear powered but since then the figure has increased to 40 per cent. In 1980 Western Australia had 11 nuclear powered warship visits. In 1981 it had 14 and since then it has dropped off to eight in 1982, 13 in 1983, six in 1984 and seven last year. This is probably not such a major issue to senators who come from other States but in Western Australia it is a real issue. My presence here is testimony to that. Nuclear warships, both American and Soviet, have a bad history of accidents. There has been one reactor meltdown on board a ship and that was on board the icebreaker Lenin, which happened in 1966. A possible meltdown also occurred on one of the two United States submarines that sank in the Atlantic in the 1960s. There has been a long record of leaks in Apra Harbour in Guam and in other ports, even if none have so far been recorded in Australia, which is rather more a matter of luck, I believe, than of careful management. Numerous other accidents involving collisions, weapons accidents and breakdowns have been recorded by nuclear navies everywhere. One of the problems with nuclear powered vessels is that they are controlled by military authorities, which are secretive about their operations and, in particular, about their safety standards. There are no independent overseers and there is no international control. A United States Navy report obtained in the United States in January 1986 under the freedom of information legislation admits that 628 mishaps occurred between 1965 and 1985. Most of those were minor but 32 rated `Broken Arrow' status, so they are quite serious, and they included the rupture of weapons leading to radiation leakages. It is most important that people understand that every time these nuclear powered warships come into our ports we are putting the population at risk. By way of example, I will refer to a few accidents that have occurred. In 1963 the USS Thresher, a nuclear powered submarine, experienced reactor problems and sank off the New England coast with 129 men on board. It lies in 8,400 feet of water but it has never been precisely located. In 1968 the nuclear powered submarine USS Scorpion, with all crew on board, was lost in the mid-Atlantic. It has never been recovered. In 1968 Japanese scientists monitoring radiation adjacent to the submarine USS Swordfish discovered levels up to 20 times higher than normal background radiation. The Japanese believed the radiation may have been linked to the discharge of coolant into Sasebo Harbour. In 1978 in Puget Sound naval shipyard, the reactor on board the submarine USS Puffer released 500 gallons of radioactive water from the coolant system into the shipyard. As far as the emergency procedures are concerned in the event of an accident on board nuclear powered warships, there are no adequate safeguards. Evidently there are documents detailing emergency procedures but they are not available to the public. There is a document called the `Nuclear Warships Visit Plan' but it has been extremely difficult to obtain information from the State emergency services which are meant to be able to deal with any emergencies. Recently Michael Lynch, a former member of the Royal Australian Navy, who was command control operations officer at Cockburn Sound and who was in charge of the visits of all warships to Western Australian ports, said that after 20 years in the Navy he found himself compelled to resign because his commission was to defend Australia. He said he realised that in his position of dealing with the visits of warships to Cockburn Sound and to other Western Australian ports he was not defending Australia but was inviting risk and inviting attack on Australia by the frequent visits of these nuclear armed and nuclear powered warships. I believe that the Australian Government is not being honest with the Australian people, because it does not give out any information on emergency procedures, unlike the situation in New Zealand. The Government says it has emergency procedures but they are kept secret, I believe, because they are totally inadequate. In New Zealand a leaflet prepared by the Auckland Civil Defence Council in 1979 warned people about some of the possible dangers and some of the precautions they would need to take. It stated, for instance, that warnings would be given to the public, that there would be assembly points, that there would be decontamination centres, that welfare centres would be set up and that there would be evacuation procedures. It is this kind of information which the people in Australian ports visited by nuclear warships need to have at hand. There would be total chaos in any ports visited by nuclear powered warships if there was an accident, because nobody is aware of the emergency procedures. I believe that not even the people who are meant to be engaged in carrying out those emergency procedures are aware of them. For example, the firemen in Fremantle have never had a practice or a drill so that they know what they are meant to do in the event of an accident. The Australian Government needs to come clean. It needs to prepare for accidents by having simulated nuclear reactor accidents so that people can actually practise what they are meant to do in the event of an accident or it should not continue to allow these dangerous warships to come into our ports. They are potentially extremely dangerous. As well as the interest that is being shown in this matter in Western Australia, of course, there is a new angle on this subject more recently in respect of Jervis Bay, part of the Australian Capital Territory, which is now on line to receive more visits of nuclear armed and nuclear powered warships. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.28) —We are debating a rather emotional motion moved by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, namely: That the Senate notes- (a) the implications to life and the planet of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in the Soviet Union; (b) the possible contribution to this disaster by Australia in exporting uranium; (c) the possibility that such a disaster could be repeated in other places around the globe; (d) the possible eventual danger to Australia in the event of any disasters; and (e) the need to close all uranium mines in Australia. That motion has been emotionally supported by the senator from Western Australia, Senator Vallentine, who has just sat down, and undoubtedly will be emotionally supported by yourself, Madam Acting Deputy President, and some of the other Australian Democrat senators. Let us get this debate back on the rails and let us talk a little bit about reality. First of all, we have a world that relies pretty generally on electricity power generation. The major power stations run on steam driven turbines. That steam is generated by some sort of heat source, either the burning of coal or the burning of oil and in some instances by a chain reaction in a nuclear reactor. Let us get down to what it is-it is a heat source that generates steam to drive turbines that will then drive generators. It is technology that has been with us now for some considerable number of years. Senator Chipp said that this debate has become a case of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics versus Western-type technology. I put it that it is really old technology versus new technology. We are talking about the reactor meltdown that it appears happened in Chernobyl last week. The reactors at Chernobyl are unique in nuclear-power generation. They have a large graphite core which is used for moderation. In this instance, the core is 1,200 tonnes of graphite. The pit in which it is placed measures 21.6 metres by 21.6 metres and it is about 25 metres deep. That is a large graphite core in anybody's language. Through that core there are 1,600 channels through which pass the fuel rods and the piping which takes the water. The Chernobyl reactor, to my knowledge, has a capacity of about 3,140 megawatts thermal or 1,000 megawatts electrical. That is pretty large in anybody's language, and that size creates one of the basic problems for Russian power generation in that the reactor is not inside a containment vessel. It is charged with 204 tonnes of uranium 235 enriched to only 1.8 per cent, compared with about 3 per cent in most of the Western-type reactors except for the Candu reactor. That is up from naturally occurring uranium 235 of 0.7202 per cent. The reactor basically works on what is known as a dirty circuit. In other words, water is heated by coming up through the core, through the chain reaction. As it heats up steam is generated which then goes to the steam turbines. If the reactor were to be properly contained, the whole thing would have to be inside a vessel because it is a very dirty circuit. Having gone from the turbine, the steam comes back through the condenser. Senator Sanders —What you are describing is a simple pressurised water reactor. It is not unique at all. Senator COLLARD —It is more a boiling water reactor, not a pressurised water reactor. The honourable senator should know his terms. As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the ignorance of the honourable senator from Tasmania-- Senator Archer —Don't call him a Tasmanian or you and I will fall out. Senator COLLARD —I am sorry, but that is where the honourable senator comes from. I know the Tasmanians do not own him. The reactor is a little similar to the Magnox reactor which has been generating power in Great Britain for some 20 years. There is one at Tokai Mura in Japan and I think there might also be one in Italy. Senator Sanders —Similar? That is gas cooled. Senator COLLARD —Senator Sanders has got one thing right tonight. It is a gas-cooled reactor but it has a graphite moderating core. It is gas cooled and the gas goes through the dirty circuit to a heat exchanger which in turn generates steam, which then provides the power for the turbines. So there is a clean secondary circuit. As well as being gas cooled, not water cooled, as is the Chernobyl reactor, it has a clean secondary circuit, whereas the Chernobyl reactor operates mainly on the dirty primary circuit in which steam goes straight through the turbine. So there is that difference. The last Magnox was commissioned in 1969. Advanced gas reactors have been made since then but the last was commissioned some time after 1974. Using the graphite as a moderator is basically pretty old technology. Most reactors in the Western World are boiling water reactors or pressure water reactors. This is where Senator Sanders was a little confused. A boiling water reactor is very similar to that at Chernobyl in that there is a dirty circuit, whereas in the pressure water reactor the water is the moderator and cooler. It goes through the primary circuit to the heat exchanger, then there is the clean secondary circuit which goes to the turbine, thus generating power. What happened at Chernobyl? We do not know. One of two things probably happened. Either something went wrong with the control arms or something went wrong with the cooling water coming into the reactor. Quite possibly there was human failure, and Three Mile Island has already been mentioned in the debate. For those who have studied Three Mile Island, it is quite significant that had the reactor been left to its own devices nothing would have happened. It would have shut down and everything would have been all right. Unfortunately, operators who were not as skilled as they should have been interrupted the normal proceedings and thus the Three Mile Island accident happened. Significantly, nobody was killed in that accident. At Chernobyl, whatever happened, ultimately there was lack of cooling. Control rods are used to control the heat out of any reactor. In a major call on a normal steam-driven generator more coal or fuel is blown in. In a nuclear reactor the control rods come out and allow the chain reaction to speed up, thus more heat is generated. When the control rods all drop in, the chain reaction stops. However, once the chain reaction has started there is a lot of residual heat from the ongoing radioactive decay in the fuel rods. Thus it is imperative that the cooling water gets into the reactors straight away. In this instance, we do not know what happened. It seems that there was a lack of cooling water. A tremendous amount of heat would have been generated. For the graphite core to catch fire the temperature would have had to have been about 4,000 degrees centigrade. There could have been a massive and immediate buildup of heat or superheated steam, or both, which blew the top off the reactor. The Soviet system has a lack of safety devices compared with the Western system. There being no containment vessel at Chernobyl, the explosion blew the top off the reactor and the building. Thus radioactive fall-out was released which went all over Eastern Europe. For those who do not understand, it was not a nuclear explosion. It was an explosion such as might occur if a boiler blows up, with a massive amount of heat, steam, or whatever being released straight away. Anybody in the vicinity obviously would have been killed. Death always comes into the argument, whatever accident occurs in whatever industry. In power generation in thermal-powered stations, when anything happens, perhaps a steam pipe bursts, if anybody is around there will always be death. There are deaths on the road, but apparently it does not matter if people are killed on the roads. We accept that, yet we do not accept years of safety in nuclear power generation. When something goes wrong the heat in the argument goes up astronomically. I remember clearly the day of the Three Mile Island accident. It made the headlines in most newspapers in Australia. On page 3 or 4 there was a four- or five-line paragraph indicating that about 25 coal miners had been killed in an underground mine accident. Twenty-five coal miners rated hardly a mention in the newspapers. Nobody was killed in the accident at Three Mile Island yet it made the headlines. Let us keep things in perspective. As long as there are thermal power stations that have to be fired by coal there will be accidents in coal mines, safe as we try to make them. There seems to be emotion about the nuclear cycle but not about the other. What are the options? Too many thermal-fired power stations are causing such problems as acid rain in Europe, which is of concern to all of us, particularly those in the Northern Hemisphere. There are arguments that we cannot build dams here and there, yet that is a renewable source which is quite clean. We have to make up our minds. Do we need power and the standard of living we have come to accept? The other argument that was being used, of course, was weapons. Weapons that are designed around plutonium need pure grade plutonium 239, which generally does not come out of nuclear power reactors. I am not denying that that plutonium comes out of reactors. Most of those nations that are into the nuclear weapons business have their own research reactors to provide it. Certainly most of the power reactors are not providing plutonium 239. The plutonium that comes out of them, plutonium 240 and 241 and all the rest of it, is too impure for nuclear weapons. Our own HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights has already been mentioned. Australia literally leads the world in some of the medical uses to which products from the nuclear reactor are put. It manufactures technetium, cobalt is used in cancer treatment and all the rest of it. Of course, solar power always comes into the argument. I would be the first to agree that more work should be done on the use of solar power, but there is one basic physical fact: In optimum conditions we get one kilowatt of power from the sun per one square metre on the ground. That is pure and simple. By the time we convert that power to electrical energy we are down to about 10 per cent usage. Whereas we certainly should use more solar power-I agree with that-we have to be realistic about it. When we need massive amounts of power generated we certainly cannot get that power purely from the solar system. My colleague Senator Sheil mentioned by way of interjection when Senator Vallentine was talking that far more people die of sun cancer in Australia every year than are ever likely to die from any nuclear power generation plant mishap. No matter what we think, in Gabon between 1.7 million and 1.9 million years ago there were naturally occurring reactors in the ground. At that stage, in that place, there was sufficient uranium 235 at 3 per cent to start off a chain reaction. There was sufficient water in the ground then to act as a moderator. It is estimated that those natural reactors operated for about 150,000 years, 1.7 million to 1.9 million years ago. We might think we are pretty good in this age but, as usual, mother nature has beaten us to it. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(8.42) —We have heard a lot of talk but very little of it has been highly informational or instructional. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, came into the debate with his usual eloquence but very little else. He said that the danger from Lucas Heights was about the same as being electrocuted by a torch battery. He has a rather Yes, Minister, response to these issues and I do not know whether that is just because he is a lawyer and perhaps does not understand the issue, or whether he is actually being misled by his Department. Either is possible. Certainly he does not understand the route that Australian uranium is taking. The end products, of course, are ending up in France. The Opposition has launched a motion which is as fatuous as the Government's amendment. The thrust of Senator Durack's argument was apparently: Yes, we may have trouble with nuclear power, but not much. At any rate we have to accept this. This is the way it is and we cannot fight City Hall. Basically that is what he said. I say: Rubbish. If we cannot change anything in this world there is no point in our being here. We might as well pack up and go home. We have to work for a better world. We have to try to better our conditions, in spite of those troglodytes amongst us who have their heads buried in the sand. I do not know how many people here are making money out of the nuclear power industry but the way that honourable senators on the Liberal side were talking there must be plenty. They do have rather closed minds on the issue. The Laborials-members of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia-have displayed their usual ignorance of the issue. Instead of debating the issue they descend to personal vilification. We can always tell when either they do not understand or they feel that they have lost the argument, because then they start abusing the Australian Democrats. Senator Collard, who spoke for the Opposition, is not in his seat, so he will have to be silent. He tried to blind us with science. I do not know whether he was reading something-it sounded as though he was-out of a text book. He obviously did not understand it, nor did he interpret it for us, except to say: `Science is wonderful. Gee whiz, isn't technology grand? After all, we can only get one kilowatt of power from a square metre of a solar collector, therefore we cannot ever count on the sun and we must continue along the same path that we are going on'. That is a simplification of what he said but his was a very simple argument. At this moment President Reagan and his friends are in Japan conferring about two things-nukes and terrorism. Actually, they are one and the same thing. At the moment, through nuclear power, international terrorism is being being escalated far beyond anything that Gaddafi had ever thought of. Nuclear reactors around the earth are spreading radiation-at this very moment one is spreading radiation which has already extended from Spain to Japan and ultimately will reach Australia. If that is not terrorism, what is? Nuclear power leads not only to terrorism but also to the necessity to protect nuclear power plants from terrorism, to totalitarian governments and to totalitarian methods. All people who operate nuclear reactors behave in a totalitarian manner. They control the flow of information to the people. They allow no dissent against their operations. I would like to talk about that. There is no essential difference from country to country, east to west, in the reaction of government officials to their own nuclear reactors. The United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission said: The probability of a major nuclear catastrophe was equivalent to the probability of a meteorite striking a major city. A newspaper article reporting on the Russian plant states: The Chernobyl nuclear power plant was hailed by an official Soviet magazine in February as being a model of safety. The article continues: The odds of a meltdown are one in 10,000 years. The plants have safe and reliable controls that are protected from any breakdown with three safety lines . . . Basically, members of the Liberal Party have been saying that these plants are absolutely safe. We see that they are not. Let us go back in history and see what actually has happened to the nuclear power industry. On 7 October 1957 at Windscale, a graphite moderated reactor like Chernobyl, fuel rods melted during a Wigner release. This may be what happened at Chernobyl. The reactor has to be run at a fairly high temperature to cause the graphite core to lose some of its energy. Interestingly enough, Lucas Heights also has in it the same carbon as Chernobyl, or Windscale for that matter. The point I would like to make here though is that no warning was given to the public by Windscale. A public information spokesman for Windscale made a brief and cryptic statement. He said: There was not a large amount of radioactivity released. The amount was not hazardous and, in fact, it was carried out to sea by the wind. There has been no injury to any person. There is no danger of the reactor's exploding. In fact, the radioactivity was not being carried out to sea by the wind, nor had it ceased to be a concern, as the announcement implied. It was coming down the coast, over land. It ultimately spread all over England and parts of Europe. Yet the British Government-I am sure our Liberal friends here would not like to say it is a totalitarian government-still made this rather totalitarian statement. What about the statement that no one has ever been hurt in a nuclear reactor accident? What about the SL-1? In Idaho Falls in America on 3 January 1961 the SL-1 exploded and killed three people. One person was standing on top of the reactor at the time. A control rod went through his groin and out through his shoulder and pinned him to the roof of the containment vessel. The other two people died of radiation poisoning immediately. They were so radioactive-- Senator Jessop —What was his name? Senator SANDERS —I can give the honourable senator his name later if he wishes it. They were so radioactive that their heads and hands had to be buried as radioactive waste. Yet the nuclear industry, sponsored by our Liberal friends, states that there has never been a fatal accident. What about the Fermi reactor? We have heard a little about the Fermi reactor. It was the bright hope of American nuclear technology; a fast breeder reactor and the best that there was. On 5 October 1966 it had a melt-down on start-up. This was impossible; it was incredible. People said that it could not happen; it would be one chance in a billion. The automatic devices failed. People said it was impossible, but they failed. They had to scram the reactor manually, by hand. They said that that would never happen. There was a danger from a secondary explosion from a sodium coolant, or a uranium explosion-it was a fast breeder reactor. This reactor was within 30 miles of the city of Detroit, which had a population of some two million. Did those in authority notify anybody? There is an excellent book-I recommend it to all honourable senators-which reads like a novel and I think honourable senators could understand it. It is called We Almost Lost Detroit. That quotation is from an engineer at the plant who said: `Oops, we almost lost Detroit'. One phone call was made. It was made to a sheriff in the local area informing him that something was wrong with the Enrico Fermi atomic power plant, that the situation would be clarified, and that he would be called back. He never was called back. No news of the accident had been broadcast that afternoon or evening but the power plant made it a point to call the local paper to give out a brief, but very ambiguous, statement to appear in the paper the next morning. It mentioned nothing about any fuel melting. It merely stated that the radioactivity level of the argon gas was observed to rise substantially. Yet that reactor was out of control. It was so out of control that when it was finally got under control 52 hours later nothing could be done with it. The plant was decommissioned and it has never operated since. There was a more recent accident at Three Mile Island. Once again we had no notification from the officials, yet 20 per cent of the core of Three Mile Island melted. The authorities refused to evacuate the residents. When the people of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania were asked whether they believed the statement about Three Mile Island, 66 per cent would not agree with our troglodyte friends from the Laborials; they did not believe the Atomic Energy Commission at all. These accidents go on and on. Can we expect technology to come to our rescue? Many honourable senators seem to worship technology. I direct honourable senators' attention to the most highly developed technology in the United States today-the space effort. On 28 January we had a very unfortunate disaster. Seven astronauts were killed when the Challenger shuttle blew up. On 18 April this year a Titan 34D blew up at Vandenberg. Yesterday a Delta with a geo-7 weather satellite, which would have given us weather data in Australia, blew up at Cape Canaveral. If the Americans cannot get this technology to work after as much effort as they have put into it and after spending more billions of dollars than have gone into even the nuclear power industry, how can honourable senators believe that they can ever get an industry which has to be 100 per cent foolproof? The nuclear industry has to be 100 per cent foolproof, not 99.999 per cent. It can tolerate no human error. How can this possibly happen? It cannot happen. One of the big problems we have in Australia is that we have a nuclear reactor. It is no use saying that we do not have one; we do, and it is in Sydney. The Lucas Heights reactor has a two-foot thick wall of graphite surrounding the fuel assembly. It is a neutron reflector which causes neutrons to be bounced back into the fission process, thus assisting in sustaining the reaction. As Senator Chipp has said, the Vice-President of Stone and Webster, which builds nuclear power plants, said that any reactor that has graphite is susceptible to a graphite fire. We should immediately demand a study of the likelihood of an uncontained meltdown at Lucas Heights in the light of the Chernobyl disaster. We should also decommission that reactor. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, has said in the Senate: The studies demonstrate that in the unlikely event of such an accident the existing HIFAR safety systems, in conjunction with the 1.6 kilometre buffer zone around the HIFAR reactor, would provide a very high level of protection to members of the public. A 1.6 kilometre distance between the reactor and population centres! The radiation from Chernobyl has extended from Spain to Japan. How is that 1.6 kilometres away? If I lived within 1.6 kilometres of Lucas Heights, in spite of my friends in the Senate, I would migrate to Tasmania immediately. What about Australian uranium? We have heard that it is not used in Russia. Of course it is. Senator Gareth Evans has stated: What is already well known and on record is that all-in all-out does not necessarily mean that every single atom and molecule that goes in with an Australian flag sticking on it like a toothpick in an olive is the same atom or molecule that actually comes out again. Of course it is not. We send uranium in, it goes into the pool of uranium hexafluoride which is being enriched by the Russians, and we get some out. Mostly what we get out is Russian uranium. The Australian uranium stays in the system; it is used in nuclear weapons; it is used in power plants-and no one in this chamber can deny that. The final bottom line is that nuclear power is so unsafe that no insurance company will protect a policy-holder in case of a nuclear disaster. In the remaining minute left to me, I refer to my motor vehicle insurance policy. I ask all people in Australia including all honourable senators to look at the back of their policies. They will find a nuclear exclusion which says that a person is not covered in case of any type of any nuclear reactor accident or any kind of ionising radiation. This is the fog cutter. If the friends of honourable senators opposite in private enterprise will not support the nuclear power industry, why should we? I support the original motion. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(8.56) —I have listened to a lot of rhetoric about this subject today, not the least being from Senator Sanders. I also listened to Senator Chipp, who spoke earlier. I get used to Senator Chipp's emotional outbursts on this subject. Senator MacGibbon —Particularly on a broadcast day. Senator JESSOP —Yes, that is usually the time the honourable senator picks to rant and rave about the inadequacy of the Government and the Opposition on these matters. I must say that I was quite impressed with the way that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, responded to him. He pointed out that the Australian Democrats are prone to this sort of emotive, uneducated-- Senator Mason —It is just as well that we are, isn't it? Senator JESSOP —The honourable senator ought to think about his future and wonder about alternative energy sources. It is not surprising that the Australian Democrats have once more generated an hysterical and dishonest motion relating to the peaceful-- Senator Chipp —Do you mean hysterical or historical? Senator JESSOP —And historical. I will talk about the history of the matter in a moment. Senator Chipp —If you are going to speak at 9 o'clock, you must dine carefully. Senator JESSOP —Let me express my sorrow with respect to the two people who-- Senator Chipp —Do you get my drift? Particularly when you are talking about the future of the world; you have a serious dinner. Senator JESSOP —I see. Let me reply to the honourable senator. First of all, in expressing sorrow about the death of two or three people as a result of the Chernobyl accident, I find it difficult to contain my anger at the childish outburst from the anti-nuclear industries in Australia and abroad. In historical terms they resemble those British citizens who, in the nineteenth century, hysterically demanded that railways be banned because of the first railway accident and the effect of the noise of railways on the farmyards. There is much concern in the world over the accident at Chernobyl. It is possible that a serious nuclear power station accident in one country could adversely affect not only its own citizens but also those in adjacent countries, and not only its own environment but that of adjacent countries as well. For this reason Australia should be doing its utmost to persuade the Soviet Union and other communist nations to adhere to the nuclear safety codes and guides program which is known, as I understand it, as the NUSS program. Senator Chipp —You are not reading that, are you? Senator JESSOP —I am like the honourable senator: I try to put a few facts before the Senate. The International Atomic Energy Agency is concerned with the development and peaceful utilisation of atomic energy. The IAEA has concluded: . . . there are no factors related to safety that would limit the use and development of nuclear power, safety could be improved by giving more attention to the relationship between the operator and the plant and by devoting more effort to developing equipment and training personnel to ensure that small accidents did not turn into more serious ones. As yet we do not know either what happened at Chernobyl or how serious the accident has been. This is due to the extraordinary secrecy of the Soviet Government, in regard to both its own citizens and the international community. We have been told that the accident was due to human error. That may be true. Nonetheless, we know that Soviet technology in this field is both outdated and below the standards demanded in the West. Despite the NUSS program, which should be concerned with the establishment of internationally acceptable safety standards, codes and guides in connection with the regulation, siting, design, construction and operation of research reactors, nuclear power stations and other nuclear facilities, the Soviet Union has chosen to ignore these standards and has persisted with technology rejected by the West in the early post-war years. The Soviet Union, probably working on plans supplied to it by spies from Western nations, adapted the plutonium production reactors used at Hanford in the far west of the United States of America during the war. In 1945 Britain rejected that style of reactor for its Calder Hall facility. I think Senator Chipp referred earlier to Windscale. Of course Calder Hall was the initial power station developed in the United Kingdom but of course, as I said, the Hanford type of plant was rejected as being too risky for the United Kingdom. However, the Soviet Union used the Hanford model and its first military reactors were in operation in the Urals in 1947. By June 1954 it had built a five-megawatt Obninsk reactor and coupled it into the Moscow grid a year before Britain connected up the Calder Hall facility-which of course was much bigger but also much different and safer as far as technological development was concerned. Over the next three decades the Soviet Union pushed ahead very quickly, but without the constant urge to improve technology which the profit and safety motives of the West ensured. Because of this the Kremlin has forbidden its engineers and scientists to discuss nuclear power generation with their Western counterparts. It is interesting that despite the findings of nationally and internationally respected authorities the Socialist Left, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and I believe the Australian Democrats have opposed the nuclear industry in Australia. In so doing-I exclude the Democrats from this-they have really extolled the virtues of the nuclear industry in the Soviet Union. I do not think the Democrats have done that, but they have reserved all their hysterical venom and doomsday rhetoric for the nuclear industry in the west. Senator Sanders —In the world. I made that point. Senator JESSOP —I excused the honourable senator from supporting the Soviet Union. I would like him to recognise that. But the Socialist Left, that wonderful euphemism for Australian communists, has eulogised Soviet nuclear power generation and to demonstrate that point I quote from a well known Left extremist, the one time President of the Pro-Soviet Socialist Party of Australia, Pat Clancy. At the 1979 South Pacific and Asian Trade Unity Conference he stated that nuclear energy can be used for peaceful purposes but he said: It depends on who uses it. In Australia we are opposed to it. It must be publicly owned. Whenever it is in private hands and for profit, it poses great danger. We support its use in socialist countries but not in Australia. In socialist countries it is necessary and safe for the generation of electricity. There has never been a nuclear accident in the USSR and there never will be. Waste is dumped where there is no damage to other countries. The truth has never moved Pat Clancy or his colleagues before-not the Iron Curtain, not East Germany, not Czechoslovakia, not Hungary, not Poland and not Afghanistan. The reality of this tyranny has never affected their slavish support for the Soviet Union; nor will Shermanville. Senator Chipp —Shermanville? Where is that? Senator JESSOP —It is in Russia, isn't it? Hasn't the honourable senator heard of Chernobyl? Senator Chipp —Shermanville; no. Senator JESSOP —That displays the honourable senator's ignorance of the subject. The Democrats persist in the myths surrounding the Three Mile Island accident. For the benefit of that old rustler who spoke before me and who is now riding the range in Tasmania, I will provide a little education. Let me quote Professor Leslie Kemeny, senior lecturer in nuclear engineering at the University of New South Wales. The professor put it in words that even Senator Sanders should be able to understand. The professor stated that, had the good senator stood stark naked at the boundary fence of Three Mile Island throughout the period of emergency, the senator should have received less radiation than if he had had a tooth X-rayed. I hate to think of the effect on the beasts grazing in the nearby fields of the sight of Senator Sanders standing there naked, but in any case the honourable senator would not have had a hair of his body damaged. People who call for the abolition of the nuclear powered generation of electricity fail to recognise that it is an infinitely safer method than coal fired generation. We have over 3,000 years operating experience of coal fired generation-and it produces 15 per cent of the world's electricity. In some countries over 50 per cent is produced by nuclear fission. I suggest that what we ought to be doing with respect to the catastrophe that occurred in Russia is calling for some sort of international nuclear disaster task force. I think that would be something to which even the Democrats would subscribe. I made a comment about that recently, and said that there ought to be an international scientific, engineering and medical task force with appropriate lines of communication between countries. That should be established within the International Atomic Energy Agency to cater for the possibility of future accidents, particularly in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, where there is a significant number of nuclear power stations which have inferior standards compared with Western installations. People who call for the abolition of nuclear power generation fail to realise that it could be an infinitely safer method than coal fired power stations. Senator Chipp —A safer way to die. Senator JESSOP —Senator Chipp does not realise the problems associated with coal-fired power stations, the emissions from which are killing the forests of Germany and fish in the lakes of Canada and the United States. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(9.10) —Tonight we are discussing Senator Chipp's motion-a rather emotional one, as it has turned out. However, I do not think the House has discussed the pros and cons of the nuclear industry. Indeed, I do not think that topic has ever been discussed in this country and it is sad that that has not happened. We must look at the history of mankind. When man first made a fire and controlled that fire, he was on the way to progress. Man improved his way of providing for himself and his family in food, clothing and shelter. So it has gone on through thousands of years to this day. The world's population today is approximately six billion. In my lifetime man has come from the use of animal and manpower to the present situation, where everything is automated. The amount of fuel burned in the world today is astronomical. If the fires were to go out in the world today, millions of people would die of starvation because we simply could not produce the food and the things that are necessary for life to exist. Those things are impossible to produce unless we have the fuel. I and every other member of the Senate realise that nuclear power is dangerous, certainly if used by irresponsible people. A few short years ago in the 1980s the price of oil jumped to $43 a barrel when at one time it had been $5 a barrel. That price rise was disastrous for many countries. A country such as Australia does not need atomic fuel, we have plenty of oil and coal, but many countries such as Taiwan, Korea and Japan have people rather than resources. Those countries have to import raw materials in order to manufacture articles and then to export them. Are we to say that those people should not live? If they had not built atomic power stations, they could not have afforded to pay the price of oil. Consequently many people in those countries would have died of starvation; there would have been nothing left for them. They must import raw materials, manufacture them and export to live. That is true of many countries in this world. It is easy to say that we should not use this material, that we should not mine it or export it. If that were the case, we would bar ourselves from every international forum. Such an attitude is not good enough. We have a say, and I believe that the attitude of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party is aimed at improving conditions in the world and making it safer. It is good that we take that view. Nothing is perfect. Would the motor car ever have been invented if it had been realised that millions of people would have been killed as a result of the invention of that vehicle? There is a risk in everything we do, but today the world must provide for its billions of people and risks will have to be taken if those people are to survive. Who are we to say who will live and who will die? That is not the way society should be run. I agree with Senator Chipp and some of the Australian Democrats that we should endeavour to make the world safer. If an oil well blows out, the Red Adairs of this world will go to the scene and put out the fire. In the nuclear industry scientists and skilled people should be available at a moment's notice to go anywhere in the world to overcome problems in that industry. To say that such forms of energy should be completely done away with is not facing the reality of the world as it is today. I consider that nuclear fuel has a future and is yet only in its infancy. I believe that the world will need nuclear fuel and we have to learn to understand it. Most certainly it can be improved. Man has been negligent in the past with the amount of waste generated by many products. Not all societies, including our own, have always been responsible in cleaning up wastes correctly and safely. But man is learning. We realise, as does every other country, that we must be more responsible, but it is a learning process. It is ridiculous to say that everything can be done all at once. Nobody wants to see anyone die or live in misery. We are all trying to improve life on this earth and to be responsible. It is no use taking the view that because there has been an accident we should stop mining uranium. It is no good saying that we must take that course because the problem has not been solved. One does not solve problems overnight. I believe that the world will evolve a system involving a safe form of energy. Perhaps that will happen in 50 years time. It may not involve nuclear power; it may involve the fission system. I do not know and I do not think anybody else in this place would dare to say what it will be. It is only as a result of experimentation and trying to improve things that we can advance mankind as a species. The world will run out of coal and oil. As I have said, if the fires ever go out mankind is in desperate trouble. It is wrong to alarm people by saying, for example, that the atomic experimental establishment at Lucas Heights is a danger. I have visited that establishment, I have gone through it, and what Senator Gareth Evans said about it is quite correct. It is of no danger. It is not like the nuclear power station in Russia that has blown up. It is a disgrace that the Russians have not allowed scientists into that country to analyse and look at their power stations or take advice as to the advanced designs that have been developed in the West. I suppose that is the Soviet's business, but obviously something is wrong when a station of that type blows up and spreads danger throughout surrounding countries. Restraints should be placed on countries with nuclear power stations. Standards should be set down throughout the world. We do not live in an isolated community. We all share the world's wastes and all nations should be more respon- sible. It is a matter for international forums to decide and we are gradually pulling the threads together. Senator Gareth Evans moved an amendment to Senator Chipp's motion. Senator Lewis —I suppose we could close down the coal mines in Gippsland if we had nuclear power. What would you think about that? Senator ELSTOB —The coal mines probably would be closed down. We on this side of the Senate will be supporting Senator Gareth Evans's amendment and also the amendment moved by Senator Durack. They are sensible amendments. I said previously that the world's population was about six billion people. I have just been advised that it is 4.7 billion people. Senator Lewis —That was pretty close, anyway. Senator ELSTOB —It will not be very long before it is six billion people. In the last 10 years the world's population has almost doubled. There will be problems as the world's population increases. Most certainly there will be a need to use more and more nuclear power. It has been said that nuclear ships are dangerous. If the price of oil in the early 1980s had been sustained there would now be nuclear-powered cargo ships all around the world. I asked the Deputy Premier of Tasmania what his Government would have done if a nuclear-powered cargo ship had pulled in to Hobart to take away goods Tasmania wanted to sell on the world market. Most certainly Tasmania would have loaded those goods into that nuclear-powered ship. It is no use people standing alone, saying: `We will not tolerate nuclear-powered ships'. It is unfortunate that the world has so many atomic weapons. Everyone would agree with that. That question will have to be resolved. I hope that the world powers reduce their nuclear armaments. Every honourable senator in this place would hope so. But it cannot and will not be done overnight. There will be a lot of international discussion on the matter. Australia has decided that we will not go into the field of providing nuclear weapons. We have tried to impress upon all our neighbours the need not to do so. We have instigated nuclear-free zones in the Pacific. I hope that my Party also looks at the possibility of creating nuclear-free zones in the Indian Ocean. I think that is the way for this country to go. It is our duty to try to persuade countries not to develop nuclear weapons. That is the responsible way. We safeguard all the uranium we export. We make sure that it is not used in the production of nuclear weapons. We are represented on international bodies. We are not afraid to come out and say that there should be better uses of nuclear material and stricter controls, so that the type of tragedy that has happened in Russia does not happen again. It is a learning curve. It will take many years, I suppose, for things to become perfect, if that is possible. All of us must try for perfection in this field. Everyone wants to see a better world, a world free of pollution. That is everyone's responsibility. It is no use doing what the Democrats are doing. They are simply going inside and closing the door. We live in the world of reality. It is no use running away from that. Some people support the Democrats' opinions, but I do not think the majority of those people realise that what the Democrats propose is an impossibility. If oil became so expensive again, would the Democrats advocate that millions of people should lose their jobs simply because the generation of electricity was too costly? It was only the advent of nuclear power stations and the fact that we went ahead with the conservation of fuel for motor cars that reduced the price of oil around the world. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(9.25) —We are debating today a long motion moved by Senator Chipp deploring in essence the consequences of the accident at Chernobyl and putting forward a number of resolutions with regard to Australia's behaviour in the future. A couple of amendments to the motion have been moved by the Government and the Opposition, in connivance with each other I suggest, aimed at downplaying not only the effects of the accident but also any involvement Australia may have in the world nuclear energy industry. We have heard allegations by a number of honourable senators tonight that some people are being too emotional about this matter and that we ought to get our feet back on the ground, presumably. Several suggestions have been made that we get back in touch with reality. Since when has emotion necessarily been divorced from reality? I would have thought that in this case quite the reverse was needed. Senator Gareth Evans —Just link it with a bit of reason and it will be all right. Emotion is fine, but link it with some reason. Don't go on a solo flight. Senator HAINES —Listening to Senator Evans's speech, I was struck by the lack of conviction, shall we say, in his voice. I suggest that the anger and desperation that were evident were due more to the fact that he knew he was wrong than that he believed we were wrong. Why should I and other people in this chamber and elsewhere not become emotional when discussing the reality of a nuclear disaster such as occurred at Chernobyl, when debating the dangers of massive radiation and when criticising the Russians for failing to warn neighbouring countries and for not evacuating their own people? Why should we remain unemotional when we consider the very real, long term damage done to the world and its inhabitants by a nuclear catastrophe of the sort that occurred at Chernobyl? I find it outrageous that the Government would like to stop debate on this matter on the grounds that, as Senator Evans said in his rather extraordinary speech, it might alarm people. One presumes that that was exactly the reason the Russians did not bother to tell anyone in the vicinity of the disaster that the area was threatened by radiation. They did not want to alarm people. So we hide the information from people and keep them in the dark, glowing though it may be, in the hope, presumably, that they will not get worried and may not notice the ill effects of the disaster that occurred. I wonder whether Senator Evans and others thought that the article in the Weekend Australian was either unnecessarily alarmist or excessively emotional. The Weekend Australian ran a full page article entitled `Chernobyl-An accident waiting to happen'. The lead in to the article stated: . . . the frantic race forward of Soviet nuclear expansion has time and again been at the expense of safety. The article states: Chernobyl, or somewhere like it-was always an `accident' . . . Quotation marks are used around the word `accident' as it was clearly something which could have been prevented had people behaved responsibly: Chernobyl-or somewhere like it-was always an `accident' waiting to happen inside the Soviet Union, where unfettered by a democratic parliament and unbridled by the straps of public opinion, successive Kremlin leaders have thrown aside all semblance of scientific restraint to hurl their country into industrial line with the capitalist world. The fact that the reactor was, as other speakers have mentioned, an outmoded piece of equipment does not lessen the fact that the disaster occurred. It means only that where there is similar equipment the disaster could happen again. Senator Sanders —It can happen to any of them. Senator HAINES —As Senator Sanders just said, it can happen to any of them, outmoded or not. As he said a little while ago, the high technology of which the United States is so proud certainly has not stopped its having its fair share of space technology disasters. In fact the 12.30 p.m. Australian Broadcasting Corporation news yesterday reported a statement from a committee of United States scientists which has catalogued in the vicinity of 3,000 nuclear mishaps of all kinds last year alone. This is a 20 per cent increase on the previous year and is surely something about which we ought to get emotional since, presumably, if it comes from a committee of United States scientists, it is based on reality. In a report commissioned by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1982, it was estimated that the risk factor had increased fortyfold since 1975-another thing that I would expect people in our situation to get emotional about. Yet this Government says that nuclear energy is safe. When there is an accident, it says that it is safe and that there are no health risks. Indeed, it persists in justifying its part in the whole nuclear cycle by, on the one hand, arguing that it is being responsible about the sale of Australian uranium and then admitting that it sends it to countries such as Finland, which uses Russian equipment for enrichment and reprocessing programs, and, furthermore, sells it through the European Atomic Energy Community. Throughout the last week we have heard constant claims that the increased radiation levels outside the immediate accident zone at Chernobyl are safe and carry no health risks. Despite those stock reassurances from the Soviet Union, seemingly backed up by the Australian Government or some elements of it, a few governments in the more immediate vicinity are not quite so sanguine about what is happening. A number of countries have been issuing iodine tablets to children, instructing those same children to stay indoors, suggesting protective measures for pregnant women, impounding farm products and quarantining farm animals. Presumably, they have done this with good reason. Again, the Weekend Australian has indicated quite graphically the radioactive elements that are around as a result of the Chernobyl accident, and the effects that they can have on the food chain. It talks about entry of fallout into the food chain and the fact that solid radioactive contaminants fall into bodies of water and onto the soil. Anybody who has ever taken any interest in agriculture will know that they are then taken up by plants and animals, becoming more concentrated as they move up the ladder of organisms in the food chain. As far as human beings are concerned, they move to target organs, delivering large close range doses of radiation. The specific chemicals involved in something like the Chernobyl disaster-iodine, caesium, krypton, strontium and so on-are the sorts of things that, when they come into contact with the human body, affect everything from muscles through to thyroids, lungs, bones, kidneys and ovaries. But it is suggested in this place that that is something about which we should not get particularly emotional. The fact is that the scientific community knows that there is no safe level of radiation. Health authorities set what they determine to be safe levels to produce an acceptable level of damage to our species, knowing in fact that damage is inevitable and that they are unwilling to do anything about it. Arguments rage about how many people have so far died as a result of the Chernobyl tragedy. Of course, what is being ignored is the much greater toll that will be exacted in the long term. There have been credible estimates of anything up to 10,000 cancer deaths in the vicinity of Chernobyl over the next 10 years and up to 4,000 cancer deaths in Sweden over the next 30 years. Of course, as far as the Soviet Union is concerned, secrecy is paramount. Information on this accident is hard to get, as has been the case with past accidents. But one thing we do know is that the Chernobyl disaster will inevitably lead to shorter life spans for those in the immediate and associated vicinities, genetic damage to children exposed to radiation-both children who are alive now and those who have yet to be born-and the insidious effects of countless mild mutations in successive generations. The Chernobyl accident has in effect added to a growing stock of radioactive pollution from nuclear weapons use and testing, nuclear power plant accidents and radioactive waste discharges, all of which have been detailed in contributions made earlier today by Senator Chipp, Senator Sanders and Senator Vallentine. What makes all of this worse is the official reluctance, both in the Soviet Union and in other countries, to investigate and publicise the health effects of even the worse nuclear accidents. It is almost as though we have regarded this as something akin to a car accident; that is, that for the sake of expediency a certain level of loss is regarded as acceptable, disregarding the fact that, while a car accident may have immediate and tragic effects, disasters such as happened at Chernobyl, at Windscale, at Three Mile Island and elsewhere have ongoing effects. The survival of our species-indeed the survival of a number of species on this planet-cannot simply be guaranteed as radiation levels rise. It is timely, therefore, for us to consider the most serious long term source of radioactive pollution; that is, nuclear waste disposal. We need to ask ourselves what guarantees we can give to successive generations that the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or Windscale disasters will not come to them unawares through ground water and the food chain; that is, by the sort of insidious poisoning and pollution that the Weekend Australian so graphically described. Of course, the problems of waste disposal are enormous. Firstly, there is the long term stability of the site; the waste can be predicted only by using not necessarily accurate mathematical models. Like Star Wars programs and various other pieces of new world high technology, the only proof of this particular pudding will be in the eating, by which time it will be too late to do anything about the recipe. Chernobyl and the Challenger disaster show us the fallibility of complex technology. They ought, if anything, to stop us from becoming either apathetic or smug about what we do in science and technology these days. The implications for Australia are quite severe. First of all, we contribute to the world nuclear cycle by selling our uranium to practically anybody who is prepared to buy it. Secondly, the continued export of uranium is fuelling an unsolved and probably insoluble waste problem for the countries to which we sell it. I suggest that we should take a leaf from the book of those States of the United States of America which have banned further nuclear development until the whole waste problem issue is sorted out. In human terms alone the nuclear industry has left us with a cost the brunt of which will be borne not by us but by future generations. If we do not learn the lessons of Chernobyl, if we do not realise that this cost is inevitable and too high, we will be looking at the death of our species. It is not good enough to assume that because we, the current generation, may not be affected, we do not need to do anything. We prattle on in this chamber about the importance of families and the way that children are our most valuable natural resource. This debate has indicated quite clearly that most people in this chamber view that as mere rhetoric. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.40) —The Senate and all Australians deplore the Chernobyl accident. Our sympathy goes to the families of those Russians who lost their lives and to those who have suffered physical injury. Regrettably, some of that physical injury will not be apparent for some years to come. That having been said however, the points have to be made, firstly, that this accident should never have happened; secondly, it was clearly preventable; and the third damning indictment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is its secrecy. The accident became known only when it could not be kept quiet. It is not a matter of the Soviets keeping their own policies to themselves, but what we had demonstrated once more was the Soviet's lack of concern for humanity, because the lives and safety of quite a few citizens of Europe were put at risk by the secrecy of the Soviets. The governments of the European countries were denied the opportunity of taking any preventative public health measures that could have been taken had they been warned at the time, as they should have been, by the Soviets. The Senate has before it a notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Chipp on behalf of the Australian Democrats. That motion is unbalanced, inaccurate and highly emotional. The kindest thing that can be said about it is that is based on ignorance or is the consequence of panic. We have a very serious problem and it needs some sober analysis, not hysteria. The motion reads: That the Senate notes- (a) the implications to life and the planet of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in the Soviet Union; We support that. The second point is: (b) the possible contribution to this disaster by Australia in exporting uranium; That is a transparently dishonest statement. As Senator Gareth Evans said, we have never done that and we have no intention of doing it. The third point of the motion reads: (c) the possibility that such a disaster could be repeated in other places around the globe; That is a possibility. We admit that it might happen, but it is not very likely. We recognise the possibility that it could happen and that we need some constructive moves, not the moves of fear or panic or running away from the problem, which is the solution the Democrats have given us. The fourth part of the motion reads: (d) the possible eventual danger to Australia in the event of any disasters; Again there is no fear that Australia will be affected by this accident at Chernobyl, as anyone with any scientific knowledge or any intelligence at all would know from reading the reports. The last part of the motion states: (e) the need to close all uranium mines in Australia. That is absolutely pointless. People who wish to get uranium can get it from sea-water, as the British and the Japanese demonstrated over 30 years ago. Soviet Russia possesses the greatest deposits of uranium in the world, and Australia will gain nothing at all from closing down the resources we have and not making them available to the world. Senator Chipp's speech was highly emotional and devoid of any scientific fact or analysis. He said in his speech that he was trying to influence the far left of the Australian Labor Party at the convention to be held in July. What a noble motion to bring before the Senate! A member of one party trying to influence the internal politics of another. It was really a matter of theatre. When Senator Chipp had finished his histrionic display just before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, he turned around to Senators Siddons, Sanders and Vigor, flung down his glasses on the desk and said words to the effect: `Next time I speak show a bit of enthusiasm', really making a mockery of this chamber. Senator Gareth Evans gave us one of his best speeches; the most responsible speech I have heard him give in this chamber. He fully exercised the judgment that the Labor Party has shown in him by elevating him to the high office of a Minister of the Crown. He handled a matter of great importance to this country with both responsibility and distinction, as did Senator Durack and Senator Collard when they spoke. Senator Vallentine, of course, contributed her usual brand of hysteria, and Senator Sanders made his usual uninformed and irrelevant contribution. All of this is about the supply of energy, and the most common source of energy is electrical energy. The human race happens to need quite a lot of it and will need a lot more in the future. Some of this energy comes from sources that do not have a thermal origin, such as hydroelectricity, and a very small amount from wind power. The developments along these lines are necessarily very limited. We derive most of our power from heat, through combustion in some source or other, either by burning solids such as coal or wood or burning hydrocarbon liquid fuels such as oils. Coal provides the major part of the electrical energy used by the human race, and people tend to think that it is quite harmless. But tens of thousands of miners have been killed in winning that coal from the ground, and the number of people killed will go on increasing in the future because mining is inherently a high risk operation. If we burn coal and oil we contribute very much to pollution. It is one of the great inconsistencies of this place that the friends of the greenies and the other illogical people in the community, the Democrats, talk about pollution and preserving the environment, on the one hand, yet they will not use the environmentally clean fuel which is nuclear energy. When anything is burned it is an inevitable consequence of combustion that we end up with carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere, and the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has gone up considerably in the past 50 years. This contributes to the well known greenhouse effect; as it goes into the upper layer of the atmosphere it reduces the ability of the ozone layer to inhibit the sun's rays, which increases the temperature of the atmosphere. The other side is that most fuels, whether liquid hydrocarbons such as oils, or coals, contain sulphur and the combustion releases sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere which reacts with water to form sulphurous acid. This is the origin of the acid rain which is having such a devastating effect on the forests of Europe. In other words, there is no clean and safe source of power through thermal processes. I want to link this with the present energy consumption of the world. Seventy-seven per cent of the world's energy is used by 28 per cent of the world's population. I do not believe that we can hold those ratios. Furthermore, I argue very strongly that we have a moral obligation to spread 100 per cent of the world's energy around 100 per cent of the world's population. If we are to do that we will have to have a threefold increase in the amount of electrical energy developed. If we do that by burning coal and oil, the world will become quite uninhabitable. This leads to the inevitability of nuclear power. Already some countries generate as much as 50 per cent of their electrical energy from nuclear power. It is not a matter, as some of the interjectors have said, of conservation and the rest of it. There is a limit to how much can be conserved. We have to develop, and the use of energy is expanding as industrialisation takes place. A lot of countries simply do not have the option of having their own coal fields or oil fields to provide this energy, so inevitably we come to the fact that nuclear power is a fact of life. It might be a minor part of power generation, but it is something we have and the responsibility is on all of us collectively to manage it responsibly. I link this to the penultimate part of the Australian Democrats' motion, because in many ways this is the most irresponsible part of all. Section (e) deals with the need to close all uranium mines in Australia. The Australian Science and Technology Council, which is the ultimate scientific authority in this country, reported to the Government about a year ago that Australia should be involved in all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle. We in the Liberal and National parties support that position completely. The ASTEC report showed that between 1984 and 1996 a market exists for 130,000 to 170,000 tonnes of uranium for which contracts have not already been signed. The inference from that is that Australia with its cheaply produced uranium oxide should move in and capture the major part of those markets. It is not only the export earnings which are so important to us here but also the legal consequences of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as Senator Gareth Evans said tonight, is something that puts an obligation on us not to buy nuclear weapons-we do not hold them-but also puts an obligation on those suppliers of nuclear fuel to meet the market and supply under very strict safeguards the demands of those countries that need uranium for their nuclear power. Australia, under the Fraser Government, signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has been one of the greatest stabilising influences on the whole of the nuclear industry that we have had. The obligation is very clearly on us legally to supply uranium to those countries which conform to our safeguards. It is very clear from what has been said by Senator Chipp, Senator Vallentine and Senator Sanders that either they cannot differentiate between nuclear weapons and nuclear power or they are deliberately trying to confuse the two and make them synonymous in the mind of the Australian public. There is a very big difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. While all of us want to see a rundown in nuclear weapons in the world and hopefully the elimination of them, not too many of us want to see the elimination of nuclear power because we see nuclear power as the only way to meet cleanly the electrical energy our civilisation needs in the foreseeable future. In conclusion, I will deal with the amendments to the motion. Under Senator Durack's first amendment, paragraph (b) would read: that the policies of successive governments mean Australia makes no contribution to the USSR's supply of nuclear material; That is perfectly true. That is the amendment which those of us in the Liberal Party and the National Party will be supporting. Paragraph (c) of the Government's amendment reads: that the Australian Government will pursue all opportunities for further strengthening of international co-operation in the area of mandatory international safety standards to minimise the possibility that such a disaster could be repeated in other places around the globe; That is a common-sense and responsible amendment moved by the Government which we will be supporting. Paragraph (d) reads: that while there is no cause for concern that fall-out from the Chernobyl accident will present any hazard in Australia, it is essential that this country continue to maintain adequate systems to monitor levels from all sources of radioactivity which may present a public health hazard; Again, that is a responsible notion by the Government which we will be supporting. Paragraph (e) reads: the Government's resolve to pursue in international forums the establishment of a mandatory system requiring nations in which similar accidents occur to notify other countries which may be affected, at the first opportunity and in the fullest possible detail. That is very necessary in the light of the secrecy of the Soviets. It is absolutely inhuman where there is a disaster which affects other people not to publicly advise those people as rapidly as possible, particularly when lives are at stake. The final amendment moved by Senator Durack which we will be supporting is to add the following words after proposed new paragraph (e): , and in the opinion of the Senate the Government should establish a task force of suitably qualified independent experts to advise the Government in carrying out the terms of this resolution and to report their advice to the Parliament. This gives effect to what is very clearly in this debate the intention of the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.55) —In 1964 a United States SNAP 19, that is the system for nuclear auxiliary power supply burnt up. The result of that operation was measured world-wide in 1970 and 1971. The world wide sampling determined that in the intervening years 14,000 curies of plutonium 238 from that system had been deposited. That was approximately double the amount of plutonium 238 already in the world environment. That is, from one accident alone there was a doubling of the environmental problem. It is interesting in the debate to hear the numbers being talked about of people who may or may not have suffered. The estimate that has been made of the result of that 1964 accident is 40,000 fatal lung cancers. That is a conservative estimate by the World Health Organisation. Where did that appear in the newspapers? Where did that appear in the literature? Yet we have bandied around in the Senate time and again that no one has died as a result of nuclear power accidents. The World Health Organisation has put down that accident alone as having 40,000 fatalities. That particular power plant was, in fact, a 100-watt system; an incredibly small system. Senator Hamer —A 100-watt? That is a light bulb. Senator MACKLIN —That is what I said, if the honourable senator does not mind listening-a 100-watt experimental system. That was in 1964. If the honourable senator would go back that far to work out what they could put up then, he would know it could only be that. That is what was caused as a result of that accident. Under the strategic defence initiative program in America contracts have been let for 100-kilowatt plants. This is supposed to be another exercise in `no problem for their human race'. It is interesting to note that the next Challenger shuttle that was to be launched after the one that was such a disaster would have had 46.7 kilos of plutonium on board. We were all lucky in many ways that the payload of the next shuttle mission was not on the one that blew up. There has been a lot of talk about poor Russian technology. I will just run through a number of examples of situations currently occurring. For example, there is a petition filed with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission requesting immediate proceedings to revoke the Detroit Eddison Company's operating licence for the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant located 30 miles south-east of Detroit. The required stress analyses had not been performed when design modifications were made during the final stage of construction. The Fermi 1 reactor, to which Senator Sanders referred, is shut down for repairs, and the Fermi 2 reactor has been shut down for repairs since October following a low power testing described by the NRC officials as the worst ever test which they have conducted. The NRC has identified multiple violations of requirements including five unplanned radiological emissions from the plant and the off-site transportation of radioactive resins to an unlicensed disposal source. Another example: There was an earthquake in the vicinity of the Perry nuclear power reactor on 31 January this year that reached 0.5 on the Richter scale with an epicentre estimated to be less than 10 miles from the Perry site itself. The ground motion from that earthquake reached 0.25Gs causing the evacuation of half of the plant's work force and a declaration of a site emergency. Perry, by the way, is designed to withstand a force of only 0.15Gs. Another example: The NRC is investigating the Cook nuclear power plant in Michigan. It has uncovered a pattern of poor management control, leading to numerous instances of personnel error, missed surveillances, lack of control over work activity and unauthorised procedures. In all, the plant is now being cited for 84 violations. It is extraordinary when one goes through the list of these investigations. Unfortunately, I do not have a chance to go through all the current NRC investigations in the 15 minutes available to me. It makes absolutely horrifying reading. Yet here we have comments such as: `We cannot have another accident. It is perfectly all right. Do not worry about it. It is the poor technology of the Russians'. Looking at accidents which have occurred outside the United States, in France, for example according to a report just to hand, it has been discovered that the Dampierre 1,900 megawatt class new kind of steam generation plant has steam generation tube cracking on steam generators, which is in addition to the longitudinal cracks discovered in 1984. At the moment the plant is still operating, but unfortunately nobody seems to know how to cope with that problem. The Ikata power plant in Japan was implicated in the red tide phenomenon at the end of last year in which toxic substances were released resulting in the death of fish in the vicinity. That power plant has now been directly implicated and investigations are under way by the Japanese regulatory commission. In Canada, the spent fuel storage bay at the Douglas Point power station on Lake Huron is pouring into that lake about 500 gallons of waste per day and there seems to be no way to shut it off. There were two other power plant problems in the United States last year. These are of particular interest because they are both Babcock and Wilcox reactor designs. The first problem was at the Besse-Davis plant, which shut down in June, and the second problem was at the Rancho Seco plant, which shut down on 26 December, for almost identical reasons to the operations that occurred at the Three Mile Island plant. In other words, that was not a one-off operation because they were all Babcock and Wilcox designed plants. Another problem Senator Sanders raised-even if we do not go to the heart of what I have just been rehearsing, that is, accidental problems-is that we are establishing in this country plants which could hold the entire world hostage. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber go stark raving mad when they talk about a union holding somebody hostage. We are actually building plants which could hold the entire world hostage. I will give two examples which are probably well known to honourable senators in this place. The first example is that of the West German parliamentarian who went into the Biblis reactor in Germany with a bazooka under his coat and presented it to the director. The second is the Canadian member of parliament who went into the reactor at the Pickering plant, again with a satchel which was unchecked. What the Democrats are saying time and again is that there is an incredibly lethal operation being developed around the world that this Government and the alternative Government seem to think is a perfectly acceptable proposition. I will briefly relate some of the problems that have occurred. The Atucha 1 reactor in Argentina was taken over by 15 guerrillas for publicity. The Fessenheim reactor sustained peripheral damage by fire following a bombing by terrorists. The Brittany reactor had its cooling water inlet damaged by Breton separatist terrorists. Basque separatists bombed the steam generator at the Lemoniz reactor. Two reactors in the Argentine were bombed. The Trojan reactor in Oregon was bombed. Unexploded bombs were found in the Ringhals reactor in Sweden, at the Point Beach reactor in Wisconsin and at the Illinois Institute of Technology reactor. Deliberately lit fires damaged the Indian Point 2 reactor in New York and worker sabotage has been reported at the Trojan reactor at Angra Dos Reis in Brazil. Quad Cities in Illinois, Preach Bottom in Pennsylvania, Fort St Vrain in Colorado, Browns Ferry in Alabama and Beaver Valley in Pennsylvania have all suffered from worker sabotage. All those plants showed enormous problems in terms of the security mechanisms which were available in the plants. What we are looking at, of course, is a vast potential for sabotage-and enormous potential for sabotage-and in fact Colonel Gaddafi has suggested quite deliberately that there should be retaliatory operations on power plants in the West for the attacks that have been made on his country. We have to recognise that, even if we are not looking at an accidental operation, we are possibly looking at an operation where a plant could be taken over by terrorists. The security mechanisms would then work in their favour and we would be in a situation of incredible peril and enormous difficulty. It is not like terrorism on a plant, a ship or a train. We would be faced with a most enormous and horrific problem and it is a problem that unfortunately this world is going to face at some stage. In relation to terrorism, most of the power plants around the world are designed to withstand only a small aircraft crash. It is by lucky irony, indeed, that the double containment strength at the Three Mile Island plant enabling it to contain the hydrogen explosion which occurred in 1979 was designed in that way because it was in the direct commercial flight path of low level approaches at the Harrisburg Airport. Most plants are not equipped to withstand a crash by a well laden wide-bodied aircraft. In 1975 a B52 crashed 20 miles from the Savannah River reprocessing plant, which is an example of the type of accident that could happen or the type of terrorism that may result from the idiotic politics of various people around the world. We have to acknowledge that potential dangers exist. It is not a matter of just being emotional; it is a matter of looking at the facts and being highly emotional. The results of the Three Mile Island plant accident have not yet been estimated, and we have had some discussions on that already. It is very interesting that there is currently a court action being taken in the Supreme Court of the United States by the citizens who live in the area around that plant. The enormous amount of evidence that has been presented makes it look as though there is every likelihood of success. In the brief time that is left, I mention that the stance of the Opposition and the Government reminds me of an item I read about a British intelligence officer who, when retiring in 1950 after 47 years of service, reminisced: `Year after year the worriers and fretters would come to me with awful predictions of the outbreak of war. I denied it each time. I was only wrong twice'. Unfortunately in this area we may be wrong only once and that may be sufficient. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia)(10.08) —Before I commence my contribution to this debate, I would like to extend my sympathies to the people of the Soviet Union who suffered from the Chernobyl accident, as I do to those people who suffered from the Three Mile Island accident. Also, my sympathy goes to the the people in the Pacific Ocean-the Micronesians, the Polynesians and to some extent the Melanesians-who have suffered from atomic bomb tests. So far there have been 21 British, 106 American and 115 French tests. A good book written by Bengt Danielsson and Marie-Therese Danielsson called Poisoned Reign I think is worth reading. The Australian Labor Party has come in for a fair amount of criticism from the Australian Democrats in particular in regard to its track record in this field. I would like to state that the Australian Labor Party has a commendable record in the areas of nuclear peace and nuclear issues. For example, there has been the appointment of an Ambassador for Disarmament, support at the United Nations for a comprehensive test ban treaty, the ratification of a number of UN and international conventions relating to nuclear issues, rejection of involvement in Reagan's Star Wars proposal, initiation of a proposal for the newly adopted South Pacific nuclear free zone, support at the UN General Assembly in 1984 for a nuclear freeze, continual condemnation of French testing and the suspension of uranium exports to France, supported by moves towards an Indian Ocean zone of peace proposal. That is just to name a few. However, I wish to thank Senator Chipp for another opportunity by way of his motion to raise a matter of particular concern to me. I will say a few words about port safety. However, at the outset I must say that I am far more concerned about the likelihood of an accident involving a reactor than I am about the likelihood of an accident involving a nuclear weapon, Indeed, I doubt that there is much likelihood of an accidental detonation of a nuclear weapon, given the number of fail-safe devices usually incorporated into their design aboard ships. There is no doubt that there have been a number of close calls involving weapons, but the evidence of reactor accidents cannot be denied. I seek leave to table a list of accidents involving reactors on nuclear powered warships. Leave granted. Senator McINTOSH —There are some shortcomings in the conditions for nuclear warship visits. These should be rectified by the Commonwealth Government. My major concern is the question of Australian sovereignty in the event of a nuclear incident involving American nuclear powered and armed ships. In March last year, American documents published in Australia revealed that, in the event of a nuclear accident on our territory, American authorities might refuse to confirm that an accident had taken place. These reports were refuted by the Director- General of Australia's Natural Disasters Organisation, but a United States Embassy spokesman in Canberra confirmed that there were no formal agreements between our two countries on the United States response to a nuclear accident involving an American ship or plane. Senator Chipp —Words are okay, but how are you going to vote? Senator McINTOSH —I say to Senator Chipp that the one thing that I will not do is mislead the Australian public regarding the ability of the political clout of any political party to bring in what it desires through the democratic process. I will be dead and gone before he will get the numbers to do anything practical about it. It can be done inside the Australian Labor Party by change and goodwill. That is what I am working for. That is the way it stands. Senator Chipp —So tonight you are going to vote against your principles. Senator McINTOSH —A cynic's laugh is a poor exchange for any principles. Having written to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) about this matter, I await clarification of some ambiguous points. It is in the interests of Australia to have a firm written agreement with the United States, and with any other foreign power whose nuclear-powered vessels might visit us, setting out the obligations and responsibilities of each party in the event of a nuclear accident. Such a written agreement would safeguard Australian sovereignty and also allow a clean-up procedure after any radiation accident to be instigated quickly without delay or conflict. I do not want those vessels here but I would like to see some proper agreement. My second concern is that some States are under a misapprehension about the extent of Commonwealth responsibility for safety planning for ships' visits. The Commonwealth has stated clearly its belief that safety planning rests in the main with the States. Each is expected to establish a ships' visits committee which would oversee and co-ordinate safety plans by organisations such as the State emergency services, the port authorities, and the police, fire and health departments. The Commonwealth, for its part, offers assistance with overall guidelines, port safety assessment and radiation monitoring and would co-ordinate any wider emergency support required via the Natural Disasters Organisation. However, some States have not so readily accepted the Commonwealth's delegation of safety matters. I understand that some State governments that oppose ships' visits on principle would prefer the Commonwealth to undertake responsibility for safety arrangements. Some States have said that if a visit were scheduled to one of their ports the Commonwealth guidelines would not be comprehensive enough or could not be met by the ports. This ambiguity is clearly unacceptable. Every step should be taken to reach unanimous understanding with the States on safety planning. In addition, we cannot say with certainty that the State safety arrangements which exist at present are complete or comprehensive. If the Australian Democrats were interested in State safety, they would listen instead of yacking. In my State, which has the majority of warship visits, there has recently been some reorganisation of emergency services. I have been advised that Western Australian safety plans are incomplete. I also question the rationale behind safety planning for only a limited radiation incident. Radiation monitors are stationed only in the immediate vicinity of the port. The public has every right to be assured that safety planning is undertaken for major contingencies. Many of the ports which were assessed as suitable for visits of nuclear powered warships are located quite close to centres of large population. An accident would not have to be severe to threaten the health and safety of thousands of people. For example, I know of no evacuation plans for the general population in the case of a nuclear accident in any of the host ports. Finally, I am not satisfied that the issue of radioactive waste discharge is under our control. There may not have been any measured discharge of radioactive waste in an Australian port but such discharges have occurred in Japan, Britain and the United States, all from United States Navy ships. According to one report, these incidents total more than 30. My understanding is that there is no written requirement for the ship's commanding officer to notify the port authorities of such a discharge. However, this requirement is important. The Japanese experience in 1968 and again in 1969 was that United States authorities refused to accept the evidence of portside radiation monitors and claimed that no radiation discharge had taken place, even though monitors clearly showed higher radiation levels in the vicinity of the United States submarine Swordfish. This question can be resolved only if the visiting ship's commander is clearly under an obligation to the host country to inform it immediately if any unscheduled discharge takes place. I make these points because the existing situation for visits by nuclear powered or armed ships is loosely defined. We shall all benefit if steps are taken to close loopholes and set down in firmer language the clear expectations that we hold for ships' visits. I brought up these points and took advantage of Senator Chipp's motion because I have been in contact with each of the States. I assure the Senate that there is a lot of misunderstanding between the States and the Commonwealth regarding who has to accept what responsibility. There is no provision for evacuation in any of the States. This matter is important. I take this opportunity to vent it. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.17) —On the matter raised by Senator McIntosh, I make it clear that I support the proposal he made that the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence should look at whether our arrangements for safety in the event of a nuclear powered ship having an accident are adequate. A point that one has to understand in comparison with the accident at Chernobyl is that ships can be moved. One of the matters at which we must look is whether, in the event of an accident to a nuclear reactor in a ship, the ship can be moved away from where it endangers the population in the time scale in which the accident might occur. Senator Chipp —Can they be moved if there is a core meltdown on board? Senator HAMER —They can be towed or they can move under their own power. Towing would obviously be best. The Committee must be satisfied with these precautions. I would support, as I said to Senator McIntosh before, a reference to look into this. I think the precautions are adequate, but we must satisfy ourselves that they are. A static land based power plant is quite a different problem compared to a mobile ship. What comes out of the Chernobyl accident is emotion. There is no doubt that this is an unparalleled nuclear accident. It is not an unparalleled power generation accident. We do not yet know the scale on which the danger rests. The Soviet Union, as usual, has been extremely secretive about the scale of the accident. Its report of only two deaths is barely credible. Whether there are hundreds or perhaps even thousands dead, nobody knows. A lot of people are talking about the number, but nobody knows. There is no doubt that, in terms of nuclear power generation, this is an unparalleled accident. I give a word of caution. If one read the headlines about the Three Mile Island accident one would have thought in the early stages that it was a comparable accident. It was well said by someone after the Three Mile Island accident that a person could have stood naked on the boundary fence of the Three Mile Island plant for six days and the radiation-- Senator Sanders —That was an apologist for the uranium industry. Senator HAMER —I do not appreciate the honourable senator's intervention. I have met many people who are totally ignorant of technology and irresponsible in what they say. The honourable senator is the first person I have met who is totally top of the class in both categories. Senator Sanders —Thank you. I take that as a great compliment. Senator HAMER —Yes, I know; I imagine you would. What I am getting at is that one wants to look at the way in which these events are projected. In the case of the Three Mile Island disaster- Senator Macklin —Put down your notes from the apologists and you will be right. Senator HAMER —I am sorry, I do not understand. The Australian Democrats are incomprehensible, as usual. What we want to get over is the fact that one wants to look at accidents in proportion. As far as I can see at the moment, this is an unparalleled nuclear accident. But all systems of power generation have accidents. What one wants to look at is how the accident level in nuclear power generation compares with other methods of power generation. Many countries in Europe and around the world are using nuclear power as a prime system of electric power generation. I cite three countries, Finland, Sweden and France, that are all moving towards half their power being generated by nuclear energy. They will not opt out of that form of power generation. What we ought to look at is whether, from the point of view of the rest of the world, this is a satisfactory, safe and acceptable means of power generation. There is no doubt at all that as the Soviet Union has been generating nuclear power, it has not been acceptable. The precautions taken by the-- Senator Mason —Go and tell that to the pregnant women around Chernobyl and see how they like that. Senator Sanders —Of course, he wouldn't know. He doesn't care about anybody but himself. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! Senator HAMER —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. The point about the risk is that we have to take it in comparison. We cannot take, as we tend to take, nuclear power accidents out of context and pretend that they are the only risks in power generation. A very interesting table was prepared, admittedly before the Chernobyl accident, on statistical evidence that I think is still valid. It pointed out that all forms of power generation cause deaths. The only way to compare the generation of power is by looking at how many deaths can be expected to be caused by the generation of a specific amount of power. Let us look at 10 gigawatt years of energy. What would be the expected deaths? From coal there would be 800 deaths, from oil 700, from wind 450, from hydro-electric power generation 100, from solar, or space heating, 95, and from nuclear power 8 1/2. Senator Macklin —You made it up, did you? Senator HAMER —No. That was produced by Lord Rothschild, a Labour adviser to the British Government. Senator Sanders —Look at the disasters that they have had. Senator HAMER —Britain has had disasters. It has had coal and oil disasters. What happens is that people look at the disasters in the area of nuclear power and from that they deduce the most bizarre conclusions. We could have an accident where a hydro-electric dam collapses and kills 1,000 people, but we do not deduce from that that hydro-electric power generation should cease. People deduce from that, if they are sensible, that they should improve the design standards of their dams so that the dams do not collapse. If nuclear power generation causes deaths we look at the way in which we can prevent that. We will not stop this system of power generation, particularly as coal and oil, by the way, cause quite serious environmental problems. The acid rain that is causing immense damage to Europe is caused by the oil and coal power generation in those countries, yet we hear nothing about that. People seem to have a fixation on the dangers-which are real but, relative to other forms of power generation, not excessive-of nuclear power generation. I heard nothing from Senator Chipp about the danger of hydro-electric power when 1,000 people were killed in the collapse of a hydro-electric power dam in Italy. We heard nothing from Senator Chipp then to the effect that hydro-electric power generation should be stopped. We do not know how many casualties there are now in this accident, but we hear what Senator Chipp deduces from this accident, caused in a country which is notoriously not using proper safety precautions. It is using graphite as a moderator when everyone else is using heavy water. It does not have an enclosing container which other countries have- Senator Sanders —Senator Collard can tell you that your last statement is not true. Senator HAMER —I would not trust anything that Senator Sanders said. Senator Sanders —That is what Senator Collard told us. Senator HAMER —I would not even accept that what Senator Sanders said Senator Collard said was correct, because Senator Sanders is notoriously a very unreliable senator. As a result of this accident Senator Chipp produced this motion: That the Senate notes- (a) the implications to life-- here comes a pure bit of Chippism-- and the planet of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in the Soviet Union; Of course there has been a risk to life! Of course there has been a loss of life! Senator MacGibbon —Senator Chipp is always in space. That is why he is always talking about the planet. Senator HAMER —He may be, but this is not a very sensible motion for the Senate to accept. Nevertheless, that is what he said. His motion states further: (b) the possible contribution to this disaster by Australia in exporting uranium; There is no way in which we will control the use of uranium by trying to produce an artificial shortage of it. There is far too much of it around the world. By being a reliable exporter of uranium, however, we can ensure that it is used only in nuclear power generation and that it is not used in reprocessing nor in fast breeder reactors, because the very effect of trying to produce an artificial shortage will be to encourage people to go in for reprocessing and fast breeder reactors. Of course, those two produce dangerous effects; they produce plutonium and that is what we must avoid. Our great contribution to the world would be as a reliable, safe provider of uranium, with proper safeguards, and that should be our role. The third point in Senator Chipp's motion is: the possibility that such a disaster could be repeated in other places around the globe; Of course it could! But so could any power generation produce casualties. We want to see this in perspective. The Democrats are getting highly emotional and they do not know the facts. I heard nothing from them when comparable accidents occurred in coal power producing plants, in hydro-electric power plants and in gas producing plants. But when there is an accident at a nuclear reactor, bang! The Democrats get very excited. The motion continues: (d) the possible eventual danger to Australia in the event of any disasters; That is very hard to see. I think it is most unlikely, with the distribution of nuclear power plants around the world, that Australia will be affected by them. Finally, we have the ridiculous conclusion in the motion, which is contrary to all the effect of the previous points: the need to close all uranium mines in Australia. As I have said, our duty to the world is to provide it with a reliable, sensible, controlled use of uranium. I support the amendments that have been moved by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans. I do not often support him but what he has said on these amendments is absolutely true. The first amendment deletes all the nonsense produced by the Democrats and states: That the Government's policies- Senator Durack will amend that to say `the Government and preceding governments'- mean Australia makes no contribution to the USSR's supply of nuclear material; That is patently true. The Soviet Union is a major producer of uranium-in fact, it is a net exporter. To say that our exports of uranium will make any difference to the availability of nuclear fuel in the Soviet Union is absolute nonsense. The Government's second amendment is: that the Australian Government will pursue all opportunities for further strengthening of international co-operation in the area of mandatory international safety standards to minimise the possibility that such a disaster could be repeated in other places around the globe; We can do that but we can only do it if we are ourselves a uranium exporter. If we are not we will have no standing in this matter and we will achieve absolutely nothing. As a major uranium exporter we can achieve something. The next amendment moved by Senator Evans is: that while there is no cause for concern that fall-out from the Chernobyl accident will present any hazard in Australia, it is essential that this country continue to maintain adequate systems to monitor levels from all sources of radioactivity which may present a public health hazard; I think that would be accepted by all honourable senators. The final amendment is: the Government's resolve to pursue in international forums the establishment of a mandatory system requiring nations in which similar accidents occur to notify other countries which may be affected, at the first opportunity and in the fullest possible detail. One of the greatest outrages of this accident has been the total secrecy of the Soviet Union. It has not revealed the scale of the disaster to its own people or to neighbours who might be affected. It is a very serious disaster and we must not, in any way, ignore that. What we must do is keep in perspective the fact that all systems of power generation cost lives. That is sad but true. We want to keep in perspective the lives lost in nuclear power generation and not go off on a totally emotional binge as have the Australian Democrats. Debate interrupted. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 86. Bankruptcy Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 84. Family Law Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 85.