Tuesday, 14 October 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 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 Georges (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Senator Georges (from 83 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the anomalous Fringe Benefits Tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive it has caused unemployment it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits Tax legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Puplick (from 119 citizens) and Ryan (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that give the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first-strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to the nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `Joint Australia-U.S.' Electronic Communication Facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Cooney (from 305 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 Vigor (from 37 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the Assets Test contains many anomalies, discriminates against people living in rural areas, and against veterans, and discourages people from accumulating assets for their retirement. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 21 citizens). Petitions received. 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 that the deficit on the balance of payments current account for the September quarter in 1986 has reached a record $4.3 billion representing an annual rate of $17 billion-about 16 per cent worse than the Budget forecast of $14.6 billion; (b) further notes that exports for the quarter have fallen 3 per cent from the corresponding 3 months of 1985 and that imports have risen by 4 per cent, resulting in an 80 per cent worsening in the balance of merchandise trade to a record deficit of $1.5 billion and a 20 per cent worsening in the deficit on goods and services to $2.6 billion; (c) regrets the Federal Government's refusal of Federal Opposition request that, in either a mini-budget last May or in its recent August Budget, it should take appropriate action to stop the serious worsening in our external accounts; and (d) calls on the Government urgently to take genuine action to reduce the record government spending it plans for this year, to re-structure the industrial relations system, as recommended by the Opposition, to reduce government intervention and to abandon the anti-business taxes that are damaging employment and investment in Australia, both of which are forecast in the Budget to worsen this year. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the failure of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev to reach any agreement on proposed disarmament measures at the October 1986 pre-summit in Reykjavik, Iceland; (b) notes, too, that the meeting failed over United States intransigence to drop the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) program and the Soviet refusal to negotiate except on those terms; (c) commends the Australian Government for its refusal to take part in the SDI program and continuing to make a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty the highest priority; and (d) urges the Government to use its `preferred position' to bring pressure to bear on the Reagan Administration to drop the SDI program and move towards a comprehensive Test Ban Treaty so there is some hope for future agreement between the 2 countries. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Federal Government is sending Professor Ovington, Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, to Paris to seek World Heritage listing for Kakadu Stage 2, despite that Government's undertaking, given at the July 1984 meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers, that it would not take unilateral action to nominate areas for World Heritage listing without the agreement of the State or Territory concerned; and (b) deplores this shabby and deceitful breach of the Federal Government's undertaking to the Northern Territory. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 11 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Sex Discrimination (Operation of Legislation) (No. 1) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 192 and made under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 11 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Defence Determination No. 46 of 1986, as made under section 58b of the Defence Act 1903, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 11 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 3) 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 37 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 11 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 206 and made under the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1983, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 11 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Air Navigation (Charges) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rule 1986 No. 211 and made under the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —by leave-These are protective notices of motion to preserve the freedom of action of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances while it awaits substantive responses from the Ministers to whom the Committee has written. The matters I have mentioned concern the possible loss of protection under anti-discrimination laws; rights to appeal against important discretionary decisions; the effect of retrospectivity on a prosecution discretion; the prohibition, without compensation, of the use of a name and symbol which is to be used by a government authority; and the issue of whether an apparently large increase in certain fees is justified as a administration cost recovery measure or whether it is in fact a disguised tax. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Child Support-a discussion paper on child maintenance-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Social Security. 2. Looking Forward to Better Health-Better Health Commission Report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Health. 3. Resolutions of the 16th Meeting of the Australian Fisheries Council held in Adelaide on 30 July 1986. 4. Resolutions of the 124th Meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Adelaide on 30 July 1986. 5. Remote Commercial Television Services-Australian Broadcasting Tribunal-Fourth Report, Central Region-Pursuant to Sub-section 25b (4) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. 6. Insurance Commissioner-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973-together with a bulletin on selected statistics on the Insurance Industry for the year ended 31 December 1985. 7. Qantas Airways Limited-Annual Report 1985-86-together with the Auditor-General's Report. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has he yet found out, as he said he would last Thursday, who will be invited to make submissions to the review of the fringe benefits tax? Does he have any more detail on how the review is to be conducted and, in particular, what are the terms of reference of the review? I further ask: Will the review be broad enough to encompass the sort of change suggested by the chairman of the Government's rural task force, Mr Cunningham, namely that employers lose the right to deductions for benefits provided to employees and that this income be subject to normal company tax? Senator BUTTON —As I have said on previous occasions, the review is being set up and will take place. When it has completed its deliberations, there will be an announcement that will provide comfort or otherwise to Senator Chaney and to other people who are concerned. I am not in a position to say precisely who will be invited, if that is the specific question directed to me. I am not in the position to say precisely what the terms of reference, so-called, are except that it is a review of the administrative arrangements relating to the tax. I forget the exact form of art that will be particularly concerned in relation to what are described as unintended consequences. So when those things are attended to there will be a result and Senator Chaney will have it. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to direct his mind to the fact that after the inquiry is concluded it will be of no use to anyone to know what the terms of reference are and who may make submissions. I ask him: When will the Government be in a position to say who will be invited to make submissions, when will the Government be in a position to say what the terms of reference are and when will the Government be in a position to respond to the many detailed inquiries that people have to make about this matter? Senator BUTTON —I think the honourable senator ought to be clear about the fact that it is not, as I said in answering the first part of the question, a review of the philosophic assumptions underlying the tax or anything of that kind; it is a review of the administrative arrangements associated with that tax- Senator Walters —What about anomalies? What is the intention? Senator BUTTON —The terms of reference are not helped by interjections. I think that to try to elevate it and describe it as an inquiry, which involves the specific terms of reference going to philosophical assumptions and other things, is to over-exaggerate what it is all about. As I say, it is a review of administrative arrangements. Senator Messner —What does that mean? Senator BUTTON —It means just what I said, Senator. If the honourable senator is too thick to understand, that is his problem, not mine. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Messner —What about unintended consequences? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Button is answering a supplementary question of the Leader of the Opposition. Senator BUTTON —I have nothing further to add to what I said previously. Senator COLEMAN —Has the Minister for Education seen Press reports which claim that some university students in Queensland are being forced to sleep in cars or to give up study because they cannot afford the cost of higher education? Those Press reports said that Queensland students under the tertiary education assistance scheme were having difficulty coping and that the Federal Government's new administrative charge of $250 is likely to force more students to give up their studies. Does the Minister agree with those comments? Has the Government made any moves to ensure that students will not be prevented from entering, or discouraged from continuing, higher education courses because of that charge? Senator RYAN —Reports of higher education issues in Queensland are usually put in fairly bizarre terms, and I think this is another example of that. I am not aware of any students having to sleep in cars because of the cost of higher education. Indeed the cost of higher education in Queensland, as in the rest of Australia, is absolutely minimal. The cost of higher education is the fee which institutions themselves levy on students, usually in the vicinity of $100, and from next year some students will be required to pay a Commonwealth-imposed administration charge of $250. But at the same time those who read reports such as this must bear in mind that students eligible for tertiary assistance have received substantial increases from the Hawke Labor Government. For example, this year under the Austudy arrangements, students aged 18 and above living at home will receive $45 a week next year compared with $35 a week this year, and that will go up to $55 a week in 1988. Independent students received $73 a week in 1986. This will increase to $80 next year and $95 in the following year. So it is quite clear that students from poorer families, that is those who are eligible for TEAS, have received and will receive substantial increases from our Government. In the light of that I think it is very inaccurate for newspapers to report such cases of poverty as if they were the general circumstances of students. It is not to say that some students do not get themselves into very difficult circumstances, and it is not to say that there are not individual students who are having a very difficult time. But as far as the Government's res-sponsibility is concerned-that is, to provide allowances to assist students from poorer families-we have more than met that responsibility. It ought to be pointed out too that higher education students have many opportunities throughout the year to add to any allowances they may get by part time and casual work, and indeed most students do that. That has always been the tradition of higher education students in this country. I think it is strange, if I might say so, that we are now getting criticisms of the administration charge by Liberal Party and National Party supporters and we are getting stories about the plight of students, when it is in fact the policy of the Liberal Party to impose full cost fees, that is thousands and thousands of dollars per year, and in the unlikely event of the Liberal-National Party being elected to government federally, we would have students sleeping in cars because they could not afford to pay $10,000 or $12,000 a year for a course. But under the present circumstances, where very minimal enrolment costs are involved for students, where student allowances have been increased quite considerably and where the opportunities for part time and casual work have increased under the successful policies of our Government, I think such stories are grossly exaggerated. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows the question I asked about the review of the fringe benefits tax. I note that the Minister has said, in his answer to me, that it is to be a review of administrative arrangements in the administration of the tax only. I remind him that last week the Prime Minister, when speaking to the review, said that he was hopeful that by the end of this month `We will be able to make changes which go to some areas of substance and others to areas of administration which will overcome these problems'. Is the Minister now telling the Senate that the review which is being conducted goes to administration only and will not touch the questions of substance which the Prime Minister conceded last week were unintended consequences of the legislation? Senator BUTTON —No, I am not telling the Senate that, and I did not use the word `only' in answering the previous question. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. There is no wish on the part of the Opposition to have any confusion about this matter. We would like some clarification. I therefore invite the Minister to tell the Senate what is the scope of the review, what are the terms of reference, and who may make submissions to this review? Senator BUTTON —I have been asked that question once already and I have answered it. I do not propose to do so again. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the breakdown of the Iceland summit between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev. What could have been the most significant step towards nuclear disarmament appears to have foundered on the American Star Wars program. Will the Minister state, first, whether he believes that the steps towards disarmament in Iceland might be salvaged, and secondly, whether United States allies might put pressure on the Americans to think again about the value of the strategic defence initiative? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government is looking forward to a detailed briefing on the Reykjavik meeting when Mr Kenneth Adelman, the Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, visits Canberra tomorrow. It may well be appropriate after that briefing for the Foreign Minister to make a more detailed statement on this matter, perhaps addressing in more detail the particular question about the strategic defence initiative that Senator Foreman mentioned. For the moment, what I can say on behalf of the Foreign Minister and the Government is this: The meeting between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev in Reykjavik on 11 and 12 October appears to have come close to unexpected agreements on quite dramatic reductions in intermediate range nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear arsenals. There also appears to have been progress on the issue of nuclear test bans, an area of very great importance to Australia and one on which we have been maintaining a very high international profile. Australia welcomes this progress, but is, however, very deeply disappointed that disagreement over strategic defences, which are being developed by both sides, prevented such agreements being finalised. The Government does not endorse programs by either side which aim at the introduction of nationwide strategic defences against ballistic missiles. The view of the Government on SDI in particular has been expressed on numerous previous occasions. In the Government's view it is imperative that the United States and the Soviet Union do not, when great advances are so close, walk away from the process of dialogue, and that both sides build upon the progress made at Reykjavik. In this regard the Government is encouraged that both sides seem to recognise the importance of continuing to work together toward early agreements on reducing and eliminating nuclear arms. We recall that in preparations for the Iceland meeting it had not been planned as the forum for a final agreement and had been seen by both sides as essentially preparatory to a full summit meeting in Washington. With so much progress made, it is most important that the dialogue continue and that the Washington summit proceed. Finally, we note that useful discussions did reportedly take place on the other agenda items covering human rights, bilateral relations and regional conflicts. One would, of course, hope that those matters could also be progressed to formal agreement and not be left in the limbo that they appear to be in at the moment following the breakdown of the Reykjavik talks. Senator POWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Now that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is adding some pseudo-respectability to the hysterical chorus of the Right demanding that unemployed people be made to work for the dole, does the Minister agree that it is high time that the Government rejected the sleazy and simplistic hound-the-victim campaign of the Right, whether new or old, and addressed the question of actually providing constructive opportunities for work or education? In particular, has the Government given any consideration to encouraging local government to develop local employment initiatives? Finally, would it now consider, despite the intended deferral of the poverty traps legislation, substantially increasing the permissible income level-at least for unemployed people-to provide an incentive for parttime work or to start an enterprise, as recommended by former Senator Chipp as early as February 1985? Senator GRIMES —I am a bit taken aback. I am not used to such emotive language in this place. It is very hard for me to take. My understanding of the ACTU's proposal is that the Government and industry will provide opportunities for unemployed people to work or undergo training, and where that work or training is available unemployed people, particularly young unemployed people, should be obliged to take part in that work or training if they wish to receive unemployment benefit. We already have a work test arrangement under which young or old unemployed people are obliged to seek work if it is available. In that regard the ACTU proposal is not so different from what now exists. Secondly, I would like Senator Powell to look outside the boundaries of this country sometime; she will find that that is what happens in all social democracies in Western Europe and in comparable countries elsewhere. What this Party, this Government and many members of this Parliament have been concerned about in the past have been proposals which would force young people who are unemployed to work under less than award conditions and to work for people who wished to exploit them by getting cheap labour. I understand that that is not the ACTU's proposal. Nor is it the proposal of most people who advocate this sort of program. To describe such a proposal as sleazy and in the emotive terms that Senator Powell used may well get her onto the front page of the newspapers tomorrow but it will not do a thing for unemployed people in this community. Unemployed people need the opportunity to work and get training to improve their capacity to work. All the expressions of the type that Senator Powell has come out with today will not help them. I remember Senator Chipp's proposal in this place about getting local government to provide work and opportunities for work for young unemployed people. That proposal did not have any opposition from this side of the House or from the other side of the House. It was a proposal to ensure that young people had the opportunity to fulfil their capacities in this society. I see nothing wrong with that, nor do I see anything wrong with what I have read of the ACTU's proposal. I will look at the rest of the words that Senator Powell used today to see whether there are any questions that I have not answered. I will attempt to answer them later in detail. Senator ZAKHAROV —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to my question of 7 October regarding $20,000 in back pay of a repatriation pension owed to a war widow, Mrs Elma Doyle of Sydney. The Minister will be aware of references in Press reports on this matter to Mr Peter Thompson of Pension Advisory Services, who supposedly is acting on Mrs Doyle's behalf. Does the Minister know whether Mr Thompson is charging Mrs Doyle a fee for his services? If so, is she getting value for money? Senator GIETZELT —I recall Senator Zakharov raising the question of the back payment to Mrs Doyle which had been stalled as a result of some weaknesses in the legislation. I reiterate what I said on that occasion: The Government has to have a legislative basis for the payment of taxpayers' funds to recipients. Unfortunately, there has been a defect in the legislation which will be rectified as a result of legislation introduced in the House of Representatives. A Mr Peter Thompson of Pension Advisory Services is claiming to represent Mrs Doyle in this matter. Unfortunately, Pension Advisory Services is not a voluntary organisation. It is a pity that Mrs Doyle has been caught up in the arrangements that gentleman is making on her behalf when veterans organisations, in particular the Returned Services League and Legacy, could quite conceivably have made representations on her behalf, as her local member has made to me, for an expedition of this matter. I have learnt that Mr Thompson charges his clients 10 per cent of any entitlement they will eventually obtain. If that information is correct, it means that Mrs Doyle will pay Mr Thompson something like $2,000 in regard to a matter which could have been represented voluntarily by veterans organisations. There is no need for any veteran to go to any advisory agency for the purpose of representing his or her view to the Government, whichever government is in power. Such matters can be properly dealt with by the Department or, if that is not sufficient, through the voluntary organisations such as, in this case, the RSL, Legacy or, for that matter, any other ex-service organisation. Certainly such matters can be and have been adequately represented to me by the local member of parliament. I warn veterans, and war widows in particular, to avoid any of these self-appointed organisations which appear from time to time seeking to exploit the circumstances in which people find themselves and rake off public funds which are normally available to the beneficiaries. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the president's gallery of Dame Nancy Buttfield, a former distinguished senator for South Australia. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to Dame Nancy a warm and friendly welcome upon her return to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator PETER BAUME —Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate recall that when the Government decided to quarantine the negative gearing of rental properties and later to tax capital gains, Ministers totally rejected suggestions by the Opposition and the Housing Industry Association that these changes would reduce the supply of rental accommodation? Is the Minister aware that both the Housing Industry Association and the New South Wales Minister for Housing, Mr Frank Walker, have blamed these decisions of the Labor Government for the crisis now apparent in the rental market? Does the Minister agree that these changes have had a serious impact on the rental accommodation market? Is the impact on the housing industry, as Mr Walker claims, a so-called `unintended consequence' of these government actions? Will the Government review the effect of the capital gains and negative gearing decisions in the same way as it has decided to review the unintended consequences of the fringe benefits tax? Senator BUTTON —I do not recall the details of the debate on the quarantining of negative gearing decision. In particular, I do not recall the Opposition's suggestions about it, but that is not surprising; nobody does. Nobody takes much notice. I do not recall Ministers rejecting the Opposition's suggestion in the terms in which the question puts it. I have not been in a position to examine the claims made by Mr Walker and others. I understand that Government spokesmen who have been in a position to examine them do not take the same view of the situation as Mr Walker does. In respect of that matter, I perhaps can direct that question to the appropriate Minister and obtain an answer in due course. Senator PETER BAUME —I have a supplementary question. Is the Minister telling us that he is not aware that there is presently a crisis in the rental accommodation market? Senator BUTTON —I was not saying that. I said nothing about that at all. Saying that I am aware or not aware of that gives no validity to the particular claims in Senator Peter Baume's question or otherwise. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to reports in this morning's Sydney Daily Telegraph of a statement by a spokesman for the National Roads and Motorists Association in New South Wales which blames bad roads rather than bad drivers for Australia's road toll? If so, can the Minister say whether there is any basis for this assertion? Senator GIETZELT —Yes, I have seen the article by the NRMA, which represents the drivers in this country. It is a pity that that organisation has sought to apportion the total blame for the high road accident rate in this country to the state of the roads. Whilst the Government accepts that that is a factor, it is not the Government's view-nor is it the view of those associated with road safety-that that is the sole factor for the high incidence of accidents and deaths in respect of our roads. The Federal Government has some responsibilities in these matters and it has taken a number of initiatives. In consultation with the States it has introduced graduated licences. It has drawn attention to the problems of alcohol with respect to driving. It has carried out an education program and, in fact, has produced a video called Road Worrier for use in schools for the purpose of educating future drivers on the need for care and safety when driving on the roads. It has also carried out a very extensive policy of spending money on improving our road systems. I am advised that the Department of Transport is of the view that some Australians are appalling drivers. They are regarded as being arrogant, aggressive, impatient and inconsiderate in respect of their relationship with other drivers. Therefore, those attitudes also have to be taken into consideration if we are to solve this problem of the high accident rate on Australia's roads. It is the Government's view, which I think is also a view shared by the States, that it is not just a question of spending more money. I would have thought that the NRMA would have taken greater responsibility for improving road manners rather than just suggesting that we spend willy nilly billions more money on road construction in Australia and that this expenditure would somehow reduce the road toll. There are a number of factors which have to be taken into consideration. The Commonwealth believes that it is carrying out its responsibility but it would expect the NRMA to play a much more positive role in realising the objective of reducing the road toll in Australia. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. The Minister would be aware that members of the Labor Caucus have identified what they see as anomalies in the fringe benefits tax. Does the Minister agree that the following examples put forward by Mr Ronald Edwards, a member of the House of Representatives, represent anomalies: Ruling No. MT2025 which requires cray boat owners to pay fringe benefits tax on the value of accommodation provided at sea; a discount allowed for car lots provided for live-in mortuary workers but refused for car yard caretakers; and the payment of fringe benefits tax on safety awards given to workers in the Western Australian timber industry? Or does the Minister believe that the tax is being properly applied in these instances? Senator WALSH —I said in a television interview last Friday-I think this part of the interview was telecast on Sunday-that there is an element of subjectivity in what is and what is not an anomaly. I accept that the facts are as Senator Crichton-Browne has stated they are; that is, that Mr Edwards has drawn attention to those specific examples and that Mr Edwards is correct in his statements about those particular examples. I am not going to get involved in a discussion here about whether they or any other alleged anomalies are in fact anomalies. But within a couple of weeks the Government should have made a decision to determine the facts as to the application of the tax and judgments about what anomalies, if any, are there. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the attention of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce been drawn to a statement released yesterday by the National Farmers Federation claiming that the Government's decision to cease paying the consumption subsidy on imported fertilisers would increase the price of fertilisers to some farmers? If so, what was the basis of the Government's decision to cease paying the subsidy? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I did see the statement. I have had a meeting with the National Farmers Federation about this matter. I am aware of the statement which was made and certainly aware of the views expressed in the statement. The National Farmers Federation is perhaps not as certain of its position as the Press release might have indicated. The National Farmers Federation was consulted extensively during the Government consideration of this matter and on a number of occasions expressed support for the removal of consumption subsidies from imported fertilisers; that is to say, at least sections of the National Farmers Federation did. So there are, I think, conflicting views amongst farmers about this issue. Of course there are conflicting impacts of any decision in relation to the fertiliser industry because of geographical factors of distance, the spread of use of different types of fertilisers throughout Australia and so on. The Government regards the decision in the Budget to cease the subsidisation of imported fertilisers as being very logical. It would be difficult in Australia at present to argue the validity of subsidising imports. This does not seem to make sense to us. The total amount of the subsidy removed from imported fertilisers, some $13m per annum, has been redirected to farmers through an increase in the subsidy on locally produced fertilisers, for which the total allocation is $55m per annum. Following that decision there was a reduction in the price of fertilisers produced in Australia by at least two of the three major manufacturers-Pivot Fertilizers in Victoria and Ingitec in Queensland. The decisions to reduce prices were made consequent upon the Government's decision. We will shortly announce a strengthening of the monitoring arrangements which have been in place for many years directed to ensuring that the full subsidy continues to be passed on to the rural sector. That is an important part of the decision. The Government believes that the decision will have a three-pronged effect on the fertiliser market in Australia. Firstly, as I have said, since the announcement of the decision local fertiliser prices have dropped and in one case a price rise announced just before the Budget has been withdrawn. Secondly, all duties have been or are to be removed from imported fertilisers so that they will be available to farmers at world prices. I refer essentially to the 2 per cent duty which was imposed by the Fraser Government. It has been withdrawn in respect of imported fertilisers. Thirdly, it will result in the strengthening of the Australian fertiliser manufacturing industry. That industry has extensive plans to restructure and is investigating new investments which will make it better able to supply the needs of the Australian agricultural sector. I think it is important to remember in this context of consideration of the Australian fertiliser industry that it is a negatively assisted industry. Of course there is a conflict between the immediate requirements of the rural sector and medium to long term plans for an industry such as that. Nobody in this Parliament would be thanked if in five years time we did not have a fertiliser industry. I think that factor must be taken into account. The process of rationalising the industry is already under way. For example, in Perth, Wesfarmers has now increased its holdings in both CSBP and Farmers Ltd and Kwinana Nitrogen Co. Pty Ltd to 100 per cent. Wesfarmers is a farmers' co-operative. It is owned by representatives of the rural sector. Two of the four major producers in Australia are farmers' co-operatives. They are owned by rural producers. I think it is important to say that the possibility of local manufacturers and importers exploiting farmers in Western Australia, as the National Farmers Federation's statement of yesterday suggested, is rather unlikely, if that co-operative is doing its job properly on behalf of the interests of its owners as well as its consumers. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. What basis was there for the Minister's attempt during his Sunday program interview to make the Australian Taxation Office and the Commissioner of Taxation scapegoats for the Government's bungling over the fringe benefits tax? What specifically was he referring to when he said that some rulings issued on the tax had applied the tax in areas where `some people in government did not expect it would be'? Senator WALSH —If Senator Collard wants answers to questions like that, he had better get himself a job as a television interviewer instead of a politician, because I certainly do not intend to share with him what I thought about some of those specific incidents. The main thrust of his question-insofar as it had any thrust-is that I attempted to rubbish the Taxation Office. That was a headline which appeared in a couple of papers. It is not, in my view, an accurate interpretation of what I said. I make the point, using similar words to those which I used on the Sunday program, that when any taxation law is introduced, there is always some scope for interpretation in the application, in specific circumstances, of the letter of the law, since an Act, of course, cannot have written into it every conceivable circumstance under which it may be applied. Senator Button —Explain it to them. They wouldn't know. There were no tax cuts in seven years. Senator WALSH —There were no tax cuts in the seven years during which the Opposition was in government; that is so. The necessity for interpretation is there-usually by way of Commissioner rulings. It is far from clear, even to people who have considerable expertise in the drafting or interpretation of taxation law, precisely what is the way in which the law should be interpreted in every circumstance. We have, in demonstration of that, the fact that various commissioners have made judgments about taxation assessments which have gone to Taxation Boards of Review, Supreme Courts, the High Court and so on. I cite as a specific example-and one which is by no means obscure-that it took many years before the question of whether expenses incurred in travelling to and from work by people was to be permitted as a taxation deduction. That was finally resolved in the High Court after many contests in lower courts, appeal tribunals, and judgments and interpretations by the Commissioner. There is nothing new about that. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the article by Katharine West in the Weekend Australian headed: `Offsets club supervises a tragic economic waste'. The article alleges that the Government has not made the offsets program work to major effect in promoting potential growth areas in the economy; that government bureaucrats have entered into cosy deals with pet foreign companies rather than fight for a changed system that would work better for Australia in the longer term; and that there is a $1 billion backlog in the offsets program, which amounts to either an administrative scandal or a tragic economic waste. Has the Minister seen the article? If so, can he comment on whether these allegations are true. Senator BUTTON —The article was drawn to my attention. I read it because it was a refreshing departure for Ms Katharine West to be talking about a different issue from her normally recycled issues of families and fringe benefits. I am surprised that she took her pen to dealing with the offsets program, which seems to be very little related to her normal theme. The sad thing is that she got it wrong. Perhaps she should go back to the recycled article and keep on with that rather than deal with something about which she clearly does not have much information or has incorrect information. The figure of $1.2 billion of outstanding offsets obligations was the figure which was about when we came to government. It was there for most of the period of the Fraser Government and, as Katharine West had some input into that Government's activities, perhaps she should have advised it about that matter at the time. The fact of the matter is that the outstanding offset obligations are substantially less than that figure. There has been a very big impact on that backlog as a result of the changed offset policy which this Government introduced following an inquiry by Sir Brian Inglis and which we introduced from the beginning of this year. Since then the program has been subject to very rigorous public review and evaluation procedures. The article in question is cycled on information which is very out of date. I hope Katharine West's other information is more soundly based. The most surprising thing of all about the article is that it did not refer at all to any of the major offsets agreements which the Government has signed in the last month or so and which will be worth approximately $360m to Australian industry. I just want to summarise some of those offset agreements which are significant. Only three weeks ago the Managing Director of Rolls-Royce came to Australia and announced that that company would set up a plant and equipment to produce titanium jet turbine engine blades, a plant which will be worth $15m and which will export $10m worth of product a year over the next six years. That visit by Rolls-Royce to Australia to establish that facility was made under the offsets program and the visit of the Managing Director to Australia was made as a return visit, as it were, for a visit made to Rolls-Royce in Britain by officers of my Department. Later last month Airbus Industries announced that it was negotiating $130m worth of offsets and these included the production of aircraft parts for jet aircraft. In making that commitment the company said: `We recognise that the Australian Government wishes to bring new work and new technology into local industry and with that in mind we are discussing a number of other new projects'. Earlier this month General Electric Aircraft Engine Business Co. announced an offsets package worth $101m. In light of Ms West's criticisms we should note that General Electric's potential involvement does not involve just the production of parts for aircraft engines; it too is looking at the development of steam injected gas turbines, titanium forgings and the formation of a data bank for industry information which will help new ventures in Australia. The list goes on and on and involved $300m worth of commitments last month. So much for the assertion that the offsets system does not help develop potential growth areas in our economy. There are a number of other examples. The other point which was made with characteristic yellow pages flair, if I might say so, was the suggestion of cosy deals `between bureaucrats and pet foreign companies'. Allegations of cosy deals have been made about the offsets program from time to time. No evidence has been produced to support any of those allegations under this Government or the previous Government when the allegations were similarly made. I make the point that prior to the revision of the offsets arrangements introduced this year certain industries were much more likely to be beneficiaries of offsets arrangements than the much wider range of industries which are now beneficiaries of the arrangements as a result of changes which have been made. For example, in the aerospace industry there was always a number of firms which were the prime beneficiaries of previous offsets arrangements. At the present time, by contrast, large numbers of computer hardware firms are involved in offset arrangements with Australian industries and the degree of cosiness here or otherwise can be judged by recent Press articles about those arrangements with that industry. Senator Chaney —Like black hats and white hats. Senator BUTTON —That is partly what I was referring to. Given the recent amount of publicity about civil offsets achievements, I am very surprised about the apparent lack of awareness of the program and the guidelines within which it operates. I hope that future articles in that column will be based a little more on research rather than ignorant assertion. Senator HAMER —My question to the Minister representing the Treasurer follows that of Senator Collard and also refers to the Minister's attempt to blame the Australian Taxation Office for the fringe benefits tax fiasco. Did the Government ask the Commissioner of Taxation for a detailed report on the likely impact of the fringe benefits tax, including specific problems likely to arise, before the tax became law? If so, did the Commissioner identify any of the unintended consequences that have now caused the Prime Minister to order a review of the tax? If he did, why did the Government proceed with such obviously defective legislation? Senator WALSH —There are three questions involved. The first one was: Did the Government ask the Tax Commissioner for a report on the specific application. The answer to that is, I do not know and, therefore, the other two questions are inoperative. Senator REYNOLDS —I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Is the Minister aware that the Queensland Premier claimed last week in a four-line statement of his policy speech that his Government recognises women as equal partners in Queensland's progress and in fact has increased their participation in all fields? If this statement has any factual basis, why does the Queensland Government refuse to participate in a number of joint Federal-State programs to benefit all Australian women? Can the Minister indicate what progress the Office of the Status of Women has been able to make in gaining any co-operation from the Queensland Government in regard to the discussion of sex discrimination and affirmative action legislation, to pass on Commonwealth money for women's health centres, and other areas where the Queensland Government refuses to participate in federally initiated programs? Senator RYAN —I am very disappointed to have to report that the Commonwealth has made very little progress because the National Party in Queensland has only what one might call an anti-equality series of policies. For example, it is committed to opposition to anti-discrimination and affirmative action programs at a time when most other governments of various political complexions have moved in this area. Queensland is one of only two States in which there is no sex discrimination legislation, no equal employment opportunity legislation and no women's adviser or women's advisory council, For the women of Queensland who are employed by the State Government, this means that they have no recourse to grievance procedures against discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status; neither is the position of women taken into account in developing government policy. The other notable manifestation of the anti-women policy of the Queensland Government is the statements of Mrs Chapman, a Minister in the National Party Government, who has put the view that single mothers should be punished for their plight by being refused the supporting parent's benefit. She puts this view in a State which has the second highest rate of teenage pregnancy and no compulsory sex education in schools. In regard to the funding of women's health centres, the Commonwealth really has made no progress at all in trying to persuade the State Government to use the funds that it gets for purposes such as these. Although a very small women's health centre in Brisbane has been struggling to provide some services to disadvantaged women, especially migrant women, the only financial support that it has got of which I am aware is support from various Commonwealth programs. I can only agree with the recent statement in the Sunday Mail that the Queensland Government has blatantly ignored the rights and aspirations of women in that State. There are 50,000 more women than men living in Queensland and I am sure that the results of the forthcoming Queensland State election will express that dissatisfaction that they feel. Senator ARCHER —I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to his recent announcement regarding the establishment of an Australian space board in response to the report of the Space Science and Technology Working Party titled `A Space Policy for Australia'. I ask, firstly, whether the Minister agrees with the recent comments of the head of the inquiry, Sir Russel Madigan, who said: The Government agreed with the recommendations but they've made sure they won't happen. A bureaucratic machine can't do it. We needed a hot-shot private enterprise-style organisation. Secondly, does the Minister agree with his advisor on aerospace and technology matters that the Madigan report was `emotive and nationalistic'? Senator BUTTON —The prime problem with the organisation of space industry related activities in Australia was one of co-ordination and development of concepts in various industries relevant to space technology. The essential function of the space board, which I announced following the Budget, is to try to bring together some of that fragmented activity in various industries and see it as being part of the contribution to a whole strategy in relation to space industry involvement. I will give the honourable senator an example. There are always overseas visitors coming here who want to talk about space industry related issues concerning remote sensing or rocketry and there has never been essentially a focal point for them to go to which embraces the diverse interests of Commonwealth and State governments or of various departments of the Commonwealth Government. The space board will have an important function as being a contact point and as a board which will try to co-ordinate those activities. The board was not allocated as much money as the Government would have liked had we been in a more favourable fiscal climate. We did not see as a possibility the priority of allocating a very large sum of money, as the Madigan report in fact recommended, in terms of space related activity. I notice that Sir Russel Madigan has since said that we do not need a departmental body, we need a private enterprise body to handle these things. Be that as it may, there is no private enterprise body, or perhaps a set of individuals, with appropriate qualifications or even interests at this time to constitute such a body as a solely private sector activity. However, I do not recall the names of all of the members of the board, but I think out of five or six, four are from the private sector and one is from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. It is not a body composed of bureaucrats in any sense as they are all essentially from the private sector of CSIRO, which has a very important research and development role in Australia's limited space activity. I would also add that although to many Australians the concept of Australia being involved in space activity seems somewhat remote, if that is the appropriate expression to use about space, we are in fact significant users of space related technology through Aussat Pty Ltd, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, Landsat and remote sensing facilities. A whole range of activities in the communications system in this country is very dependent of space technology of one kind or another. It is estimated that in the 1990s there will be a very large expenditure by governments in Australia particularly, and to some extent by private users, on space related equipment. Having said all that, there are a number of Australian companies which are showing that they can involve themselves in high technology aspects of space related engineering and other activities. For example, Kel Aerospace Pty Ltd has just been successful in obtaining a small but significant contract from the Canadian Government. Other Australian companies are involved in the building of ground stations, radio telescope equipment, and things of that kind. So I think there is some prospect, and I do not think Sir Russel Madigan or anyone else should take too gloomy a view of the prognosis. Senator JONES —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of an article in the Brisbane Telegraph on 13 October in which the Premier of Queensland has predicted that fuel prices will rise to more than 60c per litre by Christmas this year? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the article reporting the assertions of the Premier in yesterday's Telegraph. I am able to tell Senator Jones that, as usual, the Premier's statement is full of blatant untruths and misrepresentations. There is simply no accuracy whatsoever in any statement that I see in that article. Let me catalogue some of the sins. In the first place, he says that petrol prices have risen by 16c per litre since the Hawke Government came to office. That is simply not true. The March quarter in 1983 saw the basic indicative retail price in Brisbane at 42.2c per litre; the equivalent figure in October 1986 is 51.9c. That is a rise of 9.7c per litre, not 16c. He is way out. In the second place the Premier says that the Federal Government has refused to pass on the drop in world oil prices earlier this year. That is simply not true. A very significant proportion of that drop was passed on. Although some of the prices have come back up with the rise in world oil prices, the reality is still that the wholesale price in Brisbane and elsewhere around the country is still 6 per cent lower in real terms than it was 12 months ago. The claim is that there has been a massive negative effect on rural producers as a result of, again, the Government's alleged failure to pass on the drop in world oil prices. The Government went out of its way to make special concessions to ensure that rural producers, so far as their off-road use of diesel was concerned, got the full benefit of world oil price drops without any compensating increase in product excise. The reality has been that as a result of the Commonwealth's explicit concessions to rural producers, rural diesel prices for off-road use are still 40 per cent lower than for other consumers. That has been worth $364m to farmers in the period between March and October this year. As to the claim about petrol prices increasing to 60c by the end of the year, that again is a wholly misleading and wholly inaccurate projection on any view of the likely reality. There are only three ways prices could increase: First, by an increase in world oil prices; secondly, by a major further depreciation of the Australian dollar; or thirdly, by some massive increase in State taxation. There is no likely prospect of any major or further depreciation of the Australian dollar, certainly not by that order of magnitude, between now and the end of the year. No economic commentator is suggesting anything of that kind. So far as an increase in world oil prices generally is concerned, there would have to be an increase of the order of $A30 in the world oil price between now and the end of the year to cause the Brisbane price of 51.9c to rise to 60c. Even if one takes into account the maximum rural differential, which adds another possible maximum of 5.7c per litre to that Brisbane figure, there would still need to be an increase in world oil prices of about $A10 by the end of the year were we to get anywhere near 60c per litre. Nobody suggests, even on the most extraordinary reading of what is likely to come out of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries meeting, that anything like that will happen with world oil prices. The only other way that prices could possibly increase by that amount would be if there were some State taxation slug. I am sure that the Premier would be only too enthusiastic about imposing such a slug if he had the chance but, for the sorts of reasons that I have been mentioning today, the blatant untruths of which this man constantly is guilty, I am sure that the electors of Queensland will have far too much sense to give him the chance to impose any such taxation increase. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. Was the person driving a Commonwealth Ford Fairmont, ZQB 717, which has been allocated for the personal use of a senior Government Minister and which was involved in an accident in Canberra last Thursday, allegedly after failing to stop at a stop sign, authorised to drive the car? Was the car being used on official business? If not, has the Department budgeted for fringe benefits tax to be payable on such use? Will the Minister immediately ensure that such unauthorised use ceases forthwith? What are the implications for insurance and repair costs arising from this accident? Will the Government take action to recover from the driver or the Minister involved any liabilities that person may have for the considerable cost of repairs to either or both vehicles? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Michael Baume has asked a quite detailed question on the alleged use of a car in the Australian Capital Territory. That question obviously will require the personal attention of the Minister whom I represent. I am not in a position to respond. I will draw the matters to the attention of the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services and see whether he has a response. Senator BLACK —Has the Minister for Finance seen a transcript of an interview with the Premier of Queensland on radio station 4TO this morning? If so, can the Minister indicate whether the Premier's claim that the Commonwealth is contributing nothing in financial terms to Expo 88 is accurate? Senator WALSH —Yes, I have a copy of the transcript to which Senator Black has referred. Dave Harrison was interviewing the Premier of Queensland. I will give Hansard a copy of the transcript because it would be very difficult to take it down in a coherent way. The Premier said: Yes, that's a very important occasion . . . and I might mention Dave . . . to the Labor members of this city . . . please get on to their leaders' back and say play the game, be decent, put a few bob in your own Expo . . . it's their Expo, we're doing it for Canberra and they haven't put in even, David, not a cent . . . they haven't even put a half a cent in . . . they will not put anything in . . . they're leaving us carrying all the millions . . . and tens and tens of millions of dollars that's involved . . . and we're doing it . . . but they, and, er . . . the people in Canberra just sort of say, oh, because it's a free enterprise state and government we're just not going to help them. The substance of that is that the Premier asserted that the Commonwealth has not made a financial contribution to Expo 88. Senator Black asked me whether that was true. The answer is that it is not true. In fact, in 1984-85, $3m was appropriated and paid to Queensland. It was put into a Queensland Government trust account. The last time I asked about it, it was still there. But apparently the $3m plus the interest that has accrued since is no longer there. I will write to the Premier seeking an assurance that the money is still there, in spite of what he said in the radio interview, and that it has not been transferred to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, Ciasom Pty Ltd or used to pay off son John's mortgages. As soon as I can get a reply to that and a guarantee from the Premier that the $3m plus interest is still in the Queensland Government trust account and has not been siphoned off, I will let Senator Black know. The Commonwealth's financial commitment to Expo 88 does not end with that. The Commonwealth will be participating and a Commonwealth pavilion and display will be mounted. The final details have yet to be settled. In addition to that direct financial contribution, the Commonwealth will be providing a number of services which will be a real additional cost to the Commonwealth. They are being identified at present but will include at least customs and health services, quarantine and security. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 23 September Senator Vallentine asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Defence, whether I had heard of Vice-Admiral Henry C. Mustin and his article `Maritime Strategy from the Deckplates'. I had to confess to the Senate that I had not heard of either the Vice Admiral or his article. I have now, however, been briefed on the article by the Minister for Defence. Its contents only reinforce what I previously said to the Senate about the nature of the United States Navy's maritime strategy and the role of North West Cape. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the remainder of the detailed response to Senator Vallentine. Leave granted. The response read as follows- There has been no change in the US commitment to deterrence-its strategy remains defensive and is intended to deter Soviet use of force. Admiral Mustin specifically acknowledges that the fundamental premise of the Maritime Strategy is deterrence, as indeed did Admiral Watkins. In February I said that the Maritime Strategy, as we understand it, was a framework for considering all possible uses of maritime power in a broad range of strategic contingencies ranging from peace to war. This is exactly what Admiral Mustin has done. In the context of the North Atlantic and NATO, he describes the relevance of the Maritime Strategy to deterrence, and goes on to consider its application should deterrence fail. While there has been increasing US emphasis on forward deployment, as is evident from Admiral Mustin's article, these are changes in tactics, not strategies. Forward deployment, however, has long been a part of US strategy. As the US Secretary for Defence, Mr Weinberger, said in his Annual Report to Congress in February 1986: ``Forward deployment has been a consistent and substantial component of our deterrent strategy for more than three decades''. Forward deployment is described by Secretary Weinberger as a clear sign of the US commitment to the common defence of its allies. It enhances US capabilities to respond quickly with and on behalf of those allies. Finally, and quite apart from the fact that nowhere in his article does Admiral Mustin refer to the Pacific Ocean-or for that matter the Indian Ocean-nothing he says changes the role of North West Cape. The naval communications station there continues to serve as a key element in a complex system of communications supporting the global balance. Senator GRIMES —On Wednesday last, during Question Time, Senator Haines asked me a question about the effects of the decision to defer consumer price index adjustments to pensioners and beneficiaries for six weeks from 1 November, the due date. I promised to get the exact figures for Senator Haines. I am now able to inform her that the deferral will result in an overall reduction in pension payments compared with existing indexation arrangements of $24.60 for single pensioners and $40.80 for married couples. From memory that is about half the estimated figure given by Senator Haines. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —Mr President, I seek leave to have a document incorporated in Hansard. It is an answer given to a question twice asked last week in the Senate of Senator Walsh, representing as he then was the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), relating to the visits of nuclear armed and nuclear powered warships. It was an unsatisfactory response, but I would like it incorporated in Hansard. Senator Grimes —I have not seen it. The PRESIDENT —The Minister says that he has not seen the document. I suggest to the honourable senator that she show the document to the Minister and to the Opposition, which has not seen it either, to see whether they agree to the incorporation. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —I table the ministerial declaration on the Uruguay round of negotiations relating to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and seek leave to make a statement relating thereto and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Three weeks ago at Punta Del Este, Uruguay, I participated in a Gatt Ministerial meeting where agreement was reached to launch a new comprehensive round of multilateral trade negotiations. The launching of the ``Uruguay Round'' as it will be known, is a major victory for those of us seeking to reinforce a more liberal fair and open multilateral trading system. We achieved what many thought was impossible-an international commitment to resist protectionism, to strengthen and improve existing trading rules, and to expand the multilateral trading rules to cover major areas currently not subject to Gatt disciplines. There were two main achievements in this regard. First, we started the process of establishing international rules for the so-called ``new areas''-principally trade in services. Secondly, we provided a basis to bring effectively into the Gatt framework for the first time the longstanding issue of equitable treatment for agricultural trade. A measure of this second achievement is that since the inception of the Gatt in 1948 there have been no less than nine failed attempts to bring agriculture under effective Gatt disciplines. There were the seven post war mountain rounds, the 1954/55 review session at which the United States achieved a further erosion of agricultural trade rules by obtaining a waiver from the existing permissive rules and the disastrous 1982 Gatt ministerial. In my statement on trade policy in this chamber on 20 February this year, I stressed the important opportunity provided by a new round of multilateral trade negotiations to focus attention on the current bias in the rules against agricultural trade. The new round also provides Australia with an opportunity to create conditions for improved export performance in the fastest growing areas of world trade-manufactures and services. The creation of such conditions is concomitant with the Government's industry and trade policy objectives-as is the need to reduce the structural distortions plaguing commodity markets. I am pleased to report that we came away from the Punta Del Este ministerial meeting having achieved all of the objectives we identified for a satisfactory launching of negotiations. Multilateral trade negotiations will soon get under way on the full range of international trade problems confronting us. Certainly the decision to launch a new trade round taken at Punta Del Este will not solve all our problems. The Agricultural subsidies war continues. Enormous stocks of agricultural commodities continue to overhang the world market. Protectionist pressures are still evident throughout the world, and the situation could deteriorate further before improving. The importance of achieving the commencement of the ``Uruguay Round'' of mountain's lies in its unmistakeable signal of a change in direction. Peace talks have finally begun and the problems have been acknowledged. To this extent we can look to the future with a measure of confidence rather than despair. But let there be no doubt about it-the negotiations will be tough. Changing a trading environment nurtured by forty years of distortion in the rules represents a formidable challenge. Yet we are optimistic that these negotiations will produce multilateral agreement on new rules and disciplines that will open significant new opportunities for Australian exporters and strengthen the global trading system. We seek a substantial move towards trading based on comparative advantage; an environment where Australian exporters can compete on fair terms. The meeting in Uruguay followed seven months of preparatory discussions in Geneva. Australia's strategy throughout that preparatory process was to co-operate fully with other like-minded countries to ensure that our views were heard and our aspirations taken into account. Particularly, we were determined that any new round should seriously tackle the growing crisis surrounding agricultural trade issues. Agriculture still accounts for nearly 40 per cent of Australia's export revenue. Yet poor returns are threatening the wellbeing of our agricultural sector. One major factor stands out above all others as the principal cause of declining agricultural commodity prices. It is the protection and production subsidies of Europe and the United States which have encouraged more production and investment than has been warranted-production creating surpluses which have then been placed on world markets with the aid of export subsidies. Depressed prices for fair traders, such as Australia, have been the most discernible result. Similar policies have denied us legitimate access to other affluent markets such as Japan. The critical need for Australia to address the problem is well documented. But there is an equal urgency for the European Community and the United States. Neither they, nor indeed the world, can afford to sustain the costs of rapidly escalating subsidy warfare. The budget costs of all subsidies provided by European Community and the United States to their farmers is phenomenal-an estimated $US76 billion from their combined coffers in 1986, following on $US60 billion last year. The United States accounts for $US35 billion of that horrendous sum, Japan $US18 billion and the European Community $US23 billion. But it doesn't end there. If consumer transfers are added, the total cost of subsidies for the three majors approaches $US180 billion. Add taxation and the contributions of individual member states and the United States state governments, and the total climbs towards a staggering $US200 billion. It is the impact of these sums that is forcing a growing international appreciation of the need to tackle the problems facing agriculture. Yet still, before Punta del Este, smaller trading nations acting alone were unable to bring these issues into a focus sharp enough to attract the attention of the major trading economies. In the lead up to Punta del Este some of these smaller nations such as Australia, Uruguay, Argentina and Thailand worked long and hard, and indeed, effectively, to bring these issues to the negotiating table. Our shared desire to build a ``Third Force'' on agricultural trade issues motivated our initiative for an agricultural fair traders ministerial meeting at Cairns in August. In no small measure the success achieved on the negotiating mandate for Agriculture at Punta del Este can be attributed to the solidarity and vitality of the ``Cairns Group'' of fair trading nations. For the first time, smaller agricultural exporters as a group became an effective voice in the negotiations. For the first time, the focus was too sharp to ignore. The unity and resolve of the group surprised many. The pivotal role it played in the week-long process of intensive bargaining and negotiation surprised even more. Our rapid establishment as a third agricultural force allowed us to retain the initiative in the crucial eleventh hour deliberations with the majors. As a result we achieved a negotiating mandate, a mandate which for the first time embraces all subsidies-direct and indirect including export subsidies. It has shifted the focus towards the root causes of the current agricultural crisis and the need to reduce and eliminate these negative distorting influences. That mandate has been clearly recognised by the major protagonists in the current subsidy war. The E.C.'s Commissioner de Clerc told the final plenary at Punta del Este that while the E.C.'s fundamental common policies and mechanism were not up for negotiation, `agriculture will be fairly and squarely addressed in the Uruguay round-in our own interest as well as in that of other contracting parties'. U.S. trade representative Yeutter, while conceding that it would be several years before the GATT negotiations themselves bore fruit, said that `in the interim, the United States will continue to pursue policies that enhance free and fair trade, including the aggressive enforcement of U.S. laws that address the problem of unfair trading practices by our trading partners'. So the signs are all good, but we too will be expected to demonstrate our commitment to the negotiating process. The reforms and benefits being sought in the negotiating round, if achieved, will not be costless. All participants will be required to accept some discipline in return for benefits received. The Cairns group has agreed to continue meeting regularly in Geneva in the course of the negotiating process-and also at Ministerial level as circumstances require. In so doing, it is demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that the momentum and spirit of Punta del Este is sustained. The ability to harness the strength of the combined forces of the smaller agricultural exporting nations has been clearly established. We must continue to not only maintain, but also build on that new-found strength. Australia will continue to chair the Cairns group and my Department will provide the necessary secretariat to facilitate continued co-operation and liaison both within its membership and in its dealings with the major trading economies. The Uruguay declaration introduces some hope where before was only despair. A commitment to negotiate on a broad range of old and new trade policy issues. The chance to redress past inequalities and create an environment for more dynamic world trace growth in the future. It is a commendable commitment of political will. That commitment will have to be sustained and reinforced over the next four years. For the negotiations to be successful, there will need to be a determined commitment to seek domestic policy adjustments and reforms. The recognition that radical changes have to be faced is an enormous step. It establishes an environment where national policy makers will look at their policy prescriptions in a new light. In agriculture, this will also enable us to approach the shorter term surplus problems with more assurance and sense. The Australian Government will be actively pursuing all avenues to redress current trading problems in the months ahead. Naturally, there was a reluctance to adopt such a broad mandate. Some developing countries in our own region had misgivings about a negotiation that would inevitably touch into the area of domestic policy formulation. These concerns have been covered by reference to the special position of developing countries. Certainly, we would not expect negotiated outcomes to apply with the same intensity to modest support programs in these countries as would be expected from all industrialised countries and the more affluent newly industrialised countries. Services The launching of negotiations on services is another important achievement of the Punta del Este meeting. And again an historic precedent was set. For the first time we have an international consensus to consider the liberalisation of markets for service industries and to examine the scope for legally binding rules governing such trade. The services sector is a particularly important sector of the Australian economy. Services now account for 75 per cent of Australian employment and about 65 per cent of GDP. Although Australia has not to date performed well in international trade in services, the sector is well placed to take advantage of Australia's improved competitive circumstances. Changes instituted by this Government in the area of financial services, and the vitality this has injected into that sector, signal the confidence with which we can approach these negotiations. Although that represents only a first step, our potential to develop into a significant trading force in the sector is beyond doubt. Certainly our ability to compete in a more open, non-discriminatory international services trade sector will be one of the major challenges faced by Australia in the coming years-a challenge we cannot afford to ignore. It offers more potential to accelerate growth for Australia's export receipts than any other industry sector. Market Access The Ministerial declaration calls for negotiations to expand market access by reducing both tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, and liberalise trade in tropical products and natural resource-based products. Australia is prepared to participate fully in these negotiations. They offer a valuable opportunity to reinforce the Government's domestic policies aimed at improving the international competitiveness of Australian industry and the gradual development of an outward orientated industrial structure. Other key features for Australia of the ``Uruguay round'' agenda include undertakings to improve existing GATT articles and codes, particularly the subsidies code, negotiate a comprehensive safeguards agreement on emergency protection arrangements, improve the rules and procedures of the dispute settlement process and look at other ways of improving the GATT institutional framework. This is a broad reaching and complex agenda. Time Frame Ministers established a trade negotiations committee (TNC) to oversee the negotiations in the round. Between now and the end of the year the TNC will complete an organisational structure for negotiations and appoint those who will chair the various negotiating groups. We anticipate that substantive negotiations will be well under way by early next year with a four year target date for completion. However, in some areas of the negotiations, particularly agriculture, the urgency of the problems are such that we will be seeking concrete results from the negotiations as soon as possible. The United States has been advocating a special ``Fast Track'' for agriculture. Australia, and the Cairns Group, fully supports this objective. In that light, the Cairns Group will be pressing for completion of the negotiations on agriculture within two years. The negotiations will vary in length and tempo according to subject. The ministerial declaration notes that agreements reached at an early state may be implemented on a provisional or definitive basis prior to the formal conclusion of the negotiations. Australia in concert with the Cairns Group, regional partners and other like-minded countries, will be pressing for the earliest possible negotiated settlements. (Even in that case, however, it is likely that implementation of these settlements would take place over several years.) The real success of Punta Del Este is that a new round of trade negotiations has been launched encompassing critically important areas of trade for Australia in a much more comprehensive manner than has been the case in the past. It is therefore central to Australia's current economic circumstances. It offers the prospect within the foreseeable future of a new world trading order that would allow Australia to realise its competitive advantage in agriculture, and would give a major stimulus to employment, investment, and general economic growth. In short, the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations holds the prospect of a higher standard of living for all Australians. Our task in Geneva is to turn that promise into a reality. We have a long way to go but we are well positioned for what lies ahead. While there will continue to be frustrations, disappointments and reverses, there is now some room for optimism that world trade can be placed on a more equitable basis for smaller trading countries like Australia. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —I seek leave to make a statement relating to the defence policy of this Government and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The defence policy of this government is to pursue a disciplined relationship between strategy and force structure within the constraint of what is financially feasible in a period of economic stringency. Within this framework virtually every aspect of the defence of this country is being analysed and modernised to meet Australia's real defence needs in the 1980's. The annual statement of the defence minister necessarily focuses on outlays. It is more appropriate to argue elsewhere aspects of broad strategy. Nevertheless because we have closely linked the three essential elements of defence policy it is necessary briefly to state strategy and what has been achieved in matching it to budgetary possibilities. It is sometimes argued that what is needed is a statement of the desirable in the structure of the Australian Defence Forces and damn the dollar. This makes great copy but disastrous policy. Such an unstructured approach left us with armed forces undercapitalised when this government took office-an undercapitalisation which was in no small measure due to an inability to take decisions to cut unnecessary capabilities and to reduce inefficiency elsewhere in the program. This left us with some serious gaps in our force structure as amply described by Paul Dibb. Our strategy is for Defence self-reliance. It is self-reliance against a background that recognises we have regional responsibilities that must be addressed after we have assigned first priority to our own needs. It is self-reliance also within the framework of a wider alliance with the United States. Our alliance and agreements with the U.S. in particular but also with New Zealand and other South Pacific and South East Asian States impacts on strategy, force structure and budget outlays largely in positive ways. We receive at reasonable cost, essential capabilities in the intelligence, scientific and equipment areas which reduce the number of expensive tasks we would otherwise have to perform. The relationships also help to create a strategic environment which is relatively benign. Unlike many countries, we can say with confidence that it would take years for a potential enemy to develop the military capability to mount an attack on us of sufficient magnitude to destroy our society. We also realise, however, that capabilities for lower-level threats both to our national interests and those of our friends and neighbours, do exist within the region. In this case the emergence of such threats is a product not of capability but politics. A political situation can change rapidly and this government accepts that there is a requirement for it to be able to counter such challenges should they emerge. It is a pity that the disciplined approach of this government has been the object of opposition sniping based on a combination of deliberate misunderstanding of key elements of government strategy including warning time doctrine and the intellectual sloppiness of unrealistic forward defence strategies that the opposition itself abandoned in government in the 1970s. These ill informed and unco-ordinated criticisms have been accompanied by an absolute determination that no more will be spent on defence than we are spending. As the leader of the National Party said only last month ``We have got to reduce taxes and frankly I think that has a higher priority for me as far as the Budget is concerned before you decide what you are going to spend on Defence.'' Therefore in the unlikely event of a resumption of office by them, we can expect the gaps in defence which we are closing to be replaced by other areas of deficiency. This Government is tackling all of the problems the opposition generated or ignored. Our equipment is being updated, our command arrangements streamlined and strengthened, and our factories rationalised. Most importantly we have addressed key aspects of the conditions of service personnel. We have done so on the basis that whilst all in the community must share some of the burdens imposed by our economic circumstances, unusual burdens should not be borne by the forces. Like all Australians they are entitled to an independent review of their conditions and they have that now under our independent tribunal. The services are entitled to decent housing. They will get that after years of opposition meandering, through our increased financial commitment of some $66 million in this budget and an independent statutory authority. The problems of service personnel are complex as Sue Hamilton established in her report. Moneys are being made available in this budget to implement her suggestions for improving the conditions of service spouses and families. Project management and the defence factories are being reformed so that they can contribute to the exciting industrial opportunities offered by the major re-equipment of the defence force now under way. The roles and functions of the joint facilities are being explained to Australians with a new honesty and a new respect for the interest taken by Australians in global strategic issues. The resources to realise all these commitments are coming from real growth in the defence budget, and from major reforms in administration. This Government's undertaking to increase defence spending in real terms has been met over four consecutive Labor Budgets with an average annual real growth of 2.7%. The Government's commitment to real growth in defence spending has been amply demonstrated this year. Under the toughest budgetary discipline faced by any government for many years, defence spending has been budgeted to grow by 1% in real terms. In a year when Government outlays overall have not been allowed to grow at all, this is a remarkable outcome. It is even more remarkable in the light of the severe effect of the dollar's depreciation on the defence budget. The defence budget has been insulated from the effect of the low dollar, which has been taken into account before calculating real growth in the defence budget. Under this Government, defence spending has reached record peacetime levels. This year's defence budget is $7415 million, an increase of $743 million or 11.1% in actual terms over last year's outlays. Defence spending this year constitutes 9.9% of Commonwealth Budget outlays and 2.9% of GDP-sustaining the highest GDP share of defence spending since the days of the Vietnam war in the early 1970s. Within the defence budget, reforms are being made which will save over $30 million in a full year. Rationalisation of the defence factories has resulted in significant staff reductions. Management is being improved and new work practices are being negotiated. More than eighty per cent of this budget is allocated directly to the defence force for new equipment and facilities, personnel and operations. Three per cent is allocated directly in support of defence industry and production activities, two per cent for defence research and development, one per cent for defence co-operation and one per cent for expenditure by other departments. Service pensions account for another five per cent and five per cent is for the Department of Defence policy elements and central, regional and overseas administration in support of defence programs. The key focus in this year's defence budget is long term investment in equipment and facilities, to continue the re-equipping of the ADF with up-to-date capabilities tailored to our strategic needs. One third-33.2%-of this year's defence budget will be spent on new equipment and facilities, easily the highest for more than 15 years and double the rate of 17% achieved by the coalition in 1981-82. In all over 130 major equipment projects are underway this year, and decisions will be made this year on many more. The most important of these will be the new submarine project. Within a few weeks we will be receiving tenders from the two submarine consortiums, and a decision will be made in the middle of next year on which company will design and construct our new submarines. Among the major equipment purchases being made this year are Seahawk and Blackhawk helicopters, PC9 trainers for the Airforce, Steyr rifles for the Army, a wide range of trucks for the Army, harpoon and standard missiles for the Navy and short and medium range missiles for the Airforce and air defence weapons for the Army. The total of nearly $2.2 billion being spent on re-equipping the ADF this year is directed to reshaping the defence force to meet the specific strategic needs and challenges of our environment. Priority is being given to high-technology solutions to the problems posed by the unique terrain over which the ADF could be called upon to operate. Among the most challenging tasks for the ADF is surveillance of the vast areas to our north. I am therefore delighted to announce the Government's decision to proceed with a major project to develop a comprehensive over-the-horizon radar system to cover the whole of our northern approaches. Based on the technology developed by Australian defence scientists and engineers of the Electronics Research Laboratory in South Australia through the Jindalee Project, this system will provide comprehensive coverage of air and shipping movements throughout the air/sea gap to our north, far more cheaply than any other system. It is planned that at least two, and probably three new other sites will be established, one or two in north-eastern Australia and one in the west or south-west. At the same time further development will be carried out at the existing other site near Alice Springs to refine the equipment and operating procedures. Total cost of this project, including a network of three stations, will amount to approximately $500 million. Jindalee is just one example of the Government's intention to develop a force structure for the ADF which directly guards the weaknesses and exploits the strengths of Australia's strategic environment. Another important project under way this year is the conversion of the RAAF's existing fleet of four 707 aircraft for air to air refuelling of the F/A-18's. We must look continually for useful force multipliers for air operations. Increasing familiarity with problems of interception in and from the north is demonstrating the need for range in our primary air assets and the need for more time on task. So this will greatly enhance the ADF's capabilities to project power throughout Australia's area of military interest. We have commenced preliminary work on the Navy's next generation of warships, the new surface combatant. Under this project I intend to seek Government approval to build, in Australia, up to eight ships to meet the requirements identified by the Navy and by Dibb for a large number of light, capable vessels to operate throughout Australia's surrounding maritime areas. The importance of this project should not be underestimated. It is comparable in size to the submarine project. It will have higher Australian content. It will have greater export potential. It will proceed alongside the submarine project having a shorter start up period. We regard it as providing the Navy with more decks to perform essential war time tasks in focal points and in support of the heavier warships. In peace time it will give us additional useful capabilities to demonstrate Australian concern for the surveillance needs of our neighbours. It is hoped that requests for proposals for this project will be issued later this year, and that construction of the vessels will commence in the early 1990's. The project is currently estimated at $2.5 billion. Expenditure this year on major facilities projects includes $70 million on the development of the air base at Tindal in the Northern Territory, $23 million on the construction of an air base at Derby in W.A., and we have decided to provide facilities for the new Blackhawk helicopters at Townsville at an estimated cost of $19 million. These and other projects reflect the Government's commitment to defending the north of Australia by providing appropriate facilities for ADF deployments there. In excess of $500 million will be spent this year on developing and maintaining defence facilities and housing around the country. The Government is seeking to achieve substantial economies in the management of defence assets and operations through management reorganisation, the rationalisation of defence production establishments and initiatives aimed at accelerating the disposal of surplus defence equipment, land holdings, plant and machinery. The thrust of these improvements has been to delegate responsibility and authority, reduce complexity and duplication, and simplify lines of control. Creation of the office of capital procurement was the first major step in this regard. It brings together the functional areas responsible for the procurement of approved major capital equipment (including financial programming and budgeting) with the areas responsible for procurement policy and procedures, defence industry policy, and participation by Australian industry in the supply of equipment. Clear lines of authority are now provided for major equipment acquisition through every stage of a project. The office of defence production within my department now administers fifteen defence factories employing over 13,000 people. The management improvement programs initiated by this government have had to be complemented by rationalisation of the operations of Williamstown and Garden Island dockyards, and the government aircraft factories. Staff reductions have been made not only at the factory level but also in the central office in Canberra, where a reduction of over 12% has already been achieved. The government has also decided to close the Albion explosives factory in Melbourne and dispose of the aircraft engineering workshop at Pooraka, near Adelaide. The capabilities of the Albion factory will be transferred to the Mulwala explosives factory. The Albion site will be cleared and will eventually be returned to general community use. I have also announced the government's decision to establish the government aircraft factories as a government owned company. This decision recognises that the government aircraft factories are an important competitor in the Australian aerospace industry and one that is destined to become a more important commercial force. In these circumstances it makes sense to ensure that the government aircraft factories are placed on the same commercial footing as its private sector competitors. As part of the process of rationalising our defence industry, the sale and release to Australian industry of Commonwealth owned machinery was begun with a major review in April this year. Nearly 20,000 items are issued on loan or lease to hundreds of Australian companies and those immediately available for disposal are expected to realise at least $14m this financial year with further returns in coming years. Australian industry will directly reap the benefits of nearly $1800m in the Defence Budget. $380m will be spent on major capital equipment projects, including $82m for the basic trainer, $76m for the Australian built frigates, and $64m on a range of communications and electronics equipment, particularly radios (Projects Parakeet and Raven) and fixed communications (DISCON). In addition, industry will be substantially involved in projects such as assembly of the Sea Hawk and Blackhawk helicopters and continued work on the F/A-18 aircraft, with the advantages that these activities bring to industry through the transfer of advanced technology, skills and capabilities. A further $900m will be spent here in the manufacturing and service industries for other equipment, stores and repair. I have today released details of measures the government has approved to assist Australian industry to bid for defence work and to develop and export military and related products. The list of measures is based on preliminary recommendations from my ministerial consultant, Bob Cooksey, from industry itself and from within the department. Austrade is to become directly involved in selling defence products, the flow of information to industry will be improved, defence expertise, equipment and manpower will be made more readily available and export controls will be reviewed. In future defence projects, it is our intention to keep Commonwealth ownership of assets to an absolute minimum. This will mean simpler dealings with industry and less bureaucracy. The government regards the improvement of service conditions, particularly for members of the ADF, as among the most pressing of defence priorities. The Hamilton report has provided a valuable basis for alleviating some of the harsher aspects of service life. A team has now been established to implement measures to deal with these problems. Defence housing has been overhauled, with an independent authority being established to administer the 22,000 homes for which Defence is responsible. Spending on housing will rise by 20% to $66 m. As part of the major overhaul of conditions of service in the ADF, the Government has established a Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. For the first time servicemen and women's pay is now set by an independent tribunal, in line with normal Australian practice, instead of by the Government of the day. The Tribunal has already made a general determination on services pay, which produced a rise of 5.9%, and is now to consider certain allowances. The approved strength of the regular defence force will remain unchanged at 70 529, although actual numbers were below this level at 30 June 1986. The planned terminal strengths for 1986-87 are 15 732 for the Navy, 32 000 for the Army and 22 797 for the Air Force. The Army Reserve numbers are planned to increase during 1986-87 to 24 500, up from 23 145 at the end of 1985-86. Resignation rates among officers have been unusually high in recent months. This is partly due to structural factors, such as the passage through the ADF's career structure of a hump originating in the high recruitment levels during the Vietnam war. High resignation rates also reflects strong job prospects outside the ADF, especially for some classes of highly-trained officers like pilots. The requirement to match salary to rank makes it impossible for the ADF to match the offers that highly-trained young officers can attract from private employers. But neither the Government nor the ADF is content to assume that such factors tell the whole story on high resignation rates, and the CDF is undertaking a study to ascertain any other factors which may be taken into account in trying to address this problem. In line with the Government's decisions on rationalisation of the workforce at defence factories and dockyards, civilian personnel numbers overall will decline in 1986-87, in staff years, by some 850. The reduction also includes the rundown in locally engaged civilians at Butterworth, Malaysia. Average civilian staffing numbers planned for 1986-87 are 39 713. The command structure of the ADF is being modernised and strengthened to meet the demands of a self-reliant defence posture. Increasingly the three services of the ADF are being designed to fight together as one independent force, and this requires that planning and administration of the services is increasingly centralised in HQADF. A major step was taken in this direction in June with the creation of the position of Vice Chief of the Defence Force to co-ordinate the force development planning activities of the three services. The role of the reserves is also being reassessed as part of the Government's program to optimise the ADF to meet the requirements of our strategic circumstances. The Government regards the Reserves as an integral part of the ADF, and plans to enhance the functions and responsibilities of the Reserve units to reflect this. Options are being examined to allocate the Reserves more weapons and roles. For the Army Reserve, consideration is being given to equipping them with heavier weapons including tanks and medium artillery, and to allocating particular wartime functions to specific Reserve units. Consideration is being given to increasing the use of the Navy Reserve in the mine counter measures area, and maintenance and airfield defence roles to the Airforce Reserve. Each of these functions would be vital in even low-level hostilities, and the Government is legislating to allow limited call-out of the Reserves in situations short of a declared defence emergency. Incentives will be introduced to improve recruitment and retention for the Reserve Forces in recognition of their enhanced role. The Government will restore full taxation exemption of the pay of Defence Force reservists from 1 January 1987. At the same time the special reserve allowance will be discontinued as an offset. In addition, the government will increase army reserve training days from the budget level of 900,000 last year to 942,000 this year. All these initiatives will enhance that development of a defence force with capabilities relevant to self-reliant defence of Australia. But we do not do this in isolation. This government recognises the importance to our security of effective relations with regional neighbours and with our traditional friends. It is to these relationships that I now turn. The Government is devoting increased resources to co-operative defence activities with the Pacific island countries and Papua New Guinea. $34.8m has been allocated to such activities in this year's budget, compared with expenditure of $27.1m in 1985-86. Much of the increase reflects the gathering pace of the Pacific patrol boat project, which has been developed to assist the South Pacific Forum countries upgrade their maritime surveillance capabilities to maintain sovereignty over their extensive exclusive economic zones. Countries now participating in the project include Papua New Guinea and Fiji (each of which is to receive four boats) and the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Western Samoa and the Cook Islands-which will receive one boat each. Construction of the vessels is now well advanced at Australian Shipbuilding Industries' Yard in Western Australia; crews are being trained in Australia and the participating countries are developing, with advice from RAN experts in-country, the necessary infrastructure and management systems to receive the boats into service. The first boat will be completed in February 1987. This project demonstrates the Government's firm commitment to co-operate in practical ways with the south pacific forum countries to enhance the security of our common region. We would hope that they will continue to view Australia as a primary partner in defence matters. The Government has also made provision for continuing defence co-operation with our ASEAN neighbours, where funds allocated in 1986-87 total some $19.5m. With the increasing sophistication of these countries in defence matters, co-operative activities are now focused on sharing training experience and the transfer of Australian defence expertise through professional exchanges and consultancies. The changes which have occurred in the United States/New Zealand relationship as a result of the dispute over ship visits have not affected the fundamental US/Australia relationship under the ANZUS alliance. When Mr Hayden and I met with Secretary Shultz and Secretary Weinberger in San Francisco earlier this year, we reaffirmed that the ANZUS treaty remained in place, and that the relationship between Australia and the US under the treaty, and the rights and obligations assumed by Australia and the United States towards each other under ANZUS, would remain constant and undiminished. The same, of course, applies to our wider co-operative defence relationship with the United States which is facilitated by the ANZUS alliance and which includes such mutually beneficial activities as combined exercises, co-operation in research and development, and personnel and intelligence exchanges. These activities assist Australia to develop and maintain its self-reliant defence capability. This Government views our alliance with the US as a dynamic relationship, which is being developed and strengthened to meet the evolving needs of both parties. One exciting new development is the agreement between ourselves and the US Navy to jointly develop an Australian Invention-Project Nulka. This will involve our co-operation in the development of a defensive system for surface ships. The US has withdrawn its security commitment to New Zealand until the port access issue is resolved. New Zealand is well aware of Australia's own views and policies on port access. The issue has not, however, affected Australia's bilateral defence relationship and activities with New Zealand, which derive from long standing, overlapping national defence and strategic interests. In this statement I have highlighted the main features of the defence budget and indicated this Government's resolve to build a defence force relevant to Australia's self-reliant defence. The Government will shortly bring down a white paper on defence which will provide a clear and practical blue print for the continuing development of the defence of this nation. This Government has brought to the defence of Australia a new rationale, a new honesty with the Australian people, and new hardware for the armed forces. The Opposition offers old fears, outworn slogans and old equipment. This Government has an absolute commitment to renew Australia's defences from top to bottom, and an absolute commitment to provide the defence spending to do it. The Opposition is tied to the past by its 1950's strategic cliches and its absolute commitment to cut defence spending. Madam Speaker, as a further aid to responsible and reasoned debate on defence I table the 1985-86 defence report. Senator GARETH EVANS —For the information of honourable members and on behalf of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) I table the Defence Report 1985-86. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.14) —The statement which has been tabled by Senator Gareth Evans on behalf of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is entitled `Post Budget Statement'. It was given in relation to the tabling at the same time of the Defence Report. The statement which has been incorporated is very lengthy. It is a somewhat rambling tour de force of the Defence Department's activities which is very much the same as that which is already, no doubt, covered in the report and in the materials which were tabled during Estimates committee hearings regarding the Budget allocations for defence. The statement is also somewhat repetitive and, generally speaking, one wonders what benefit or interest the Minister believes that members of parliament are going to achieve from this particular exercise. As I have said, except in one respect, it really adds nothing more to the various materials that are already in the public domain. The Government says that it is considering the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and that a White Paper on that matter will be tabled shortly. But this statement is not a White Paper which deals with defence policy or defence capability; it deals really with the sorts of matters that are contained in the report of the Department of Defence. In the early part of this statement the Minister does come back to the defence strategy, the basis of the Dibb report, which has already been adopted by the Government and by the Minister for Defence. When the Minister tabled the Dibb report he talked about our strategy being one of defence self-reliance. He repeats again in this statement the basic concept the Government has, based on the Dibb report, that, unlike many countries, we can say with confidence that it would take years for a potential enemy to develop the military capability to mount an attack on us of sufficient magnitude to destroy our society. The wording that he used there seems to be very much the same as the wording in the Dibb analysis and strategy. It is a concept, of course, with which the Opposition totally disagrees. Since the Dibb report came out and since the subsequent debate on this matter has continued we have made that quite clear. We believe that this is a completely naive approach to the planning of our defence capabilities and requirements. We believe that it flies totally in the face of reality and the experience of the past. When countries have acquired major defence capabilities, as Germany did in the 1930s, within a very short space of time their capabilities were quite sufficient to be able to mount an attack, destructive of our society. These are matters for further debate in this chamber when we eventually get the Government's White Paper. It will be interesting to see whether the Government maintains that view on long term defence strategy when it puts down that White Paper because it is a view which has been rejected by virtually every major defence authority. The notion behind it seems to be a retreat into the idea of Fortress Australia, which has also been thoroughly discredited as a defence strategy, and which is part and parcel of the Minister's thinking. As I said, he repeats it again here, in light of the tremendous and virtually unanimous criticism by authorities of this particular aspect of the Dibb report-I am surprised that the Minister has repeated it again-it will be interesting to see whether the Government sticks with what has become very much the Beazley view of our defence requirements. Nevertheless, as I said, it is disappointing and disturbing to find that he is repeating it again in this statement, even though the statement is not about that subject but is really about the nuts and bolts of defence activities. The only new item in what I have described as a somewhat rambling and repetitive statement is his announcement of the Government's decision to proceed with the over the horizon radar system to cover the whole of our northern approaches. The total cost of this project, which is known as Jindalee, including the network for the three stations that are to be established, is approximately $500m-a very major defence expenditure indeed. The Jindalee project is being proceeded with ahead of other aspects of early warning systems, particularly airborne early warning systems, which certainly would be part and parcel of an effective early warning system. There has been, again, a good deal of expert criticism of the sole reliance on the Jindalee system. Jindalee is certainly innovative. It is an Australian concept that has been well researched but it is not fully proved and on its own it is not likely to be fully effective. However, the Opposition does not criticise the decision to proceed with it, but I think it is a matter of criticism that the Minister has not indicated any Government decision to proceed with other and necessary aspects of the same question but solely this aspect of it that, welcome and all as it may be, is not really an adequate solution to the problem on its own. The statement deals at some length with and claims some Government credit for defence expenditures. It points out that even in this year of restraint there will be a one per cent increase in real terms in defence expenditure. It also points out that the Government in its four Budgets so far has provided an average annual real growth in defence expenditure of 2.7 per cent. The Minister points that out as though it were some achievement of the Government. I do not know how that can be maintained in light of the fact that over the four consecutive Labor Budgets the real increase in expenditure is of the order of 4 1/2 per cent. Defence expenditure by this Government, on the Minister's own admission, is well and truly below the Government's real increases in expenditure across the board. Certainly, the figures do not establish any major concern for the defence of this country. If the Government's priorities are to be judged on the basis of these statistics, it obviously gives a very much lower priority to defence expenditure than it gives to most other items of government expenditure. Those statistics provided by the Minister, presumably in support of defence policies and commitment by this Government, reveal the absolute reverse. They reveal that the Government gives far greater priority to a whole range of other areas-there is no need to go over those-than it gives to defence, when it can spend comparatively so much less on defence than it is prepared to spend on increases in expenditure in a whole range of other areas. The Minister also seems to be claiming credit for the fact that one third of this year's defence budget will be spent on new equipment and facilities, which he says is the highest expenditure on these matters for 15 years and is double the 17 per cent expenditure achieved by the coalition in its last year in office. Of course, the fact is that decisions made over the years by the Fraser Government on new equipment-such as the F18 program and a number of other major defence equipment decisions, major initiatives in the acquisition of new defence equipment-are now, of course, being reflected in the size of the budget. That is really quite a dishonest use of statistics by the Minister and certainly does not establish the case that he has endeavoured to make. I think the most disappointing and, in the circumstances, most surprising aspect of this statement is the way in which the Minister deals with the high resignation rates of officers in the Services. The Minister seems to have no concept of the enormity of the problem and the need for the most urgent action to be taken by the Government. As I said, he mentions it. He says that it is the subject of a study by the Chief of Defence Force Staff. He seems to believe that the problems will be solved by some of the actions that have been taken by the Government in relation to service conditions, which I will deal with separately in a minute. The magnitude of the officer resignation rate and the problem presented by it is enormous. It is nothing less than a brain drain in the defence forces of this country and has clearly reached crisis level. In all Services, highly trained personnel are leaving at a faster rate than the rate at which they are being recruited, let alone trained. In the Australian Defence Force as a whole, 620 male officers have resigned so far this year, which is twice the rate which occurred last year. Losses from the Australian defence forces are now running at almost 10 per cent a year and simply cannot be sustained at that level. Already there are indications from senior officers of the effect that this is having. They are simply having to cut back on functions. The Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant-General Gration, said recently that the only way out for the Army was to divert manpower from lower priority areas. A senior officer in the Royal Australian Air Force has warned that this year, unless current RAAF losses are stemmed, the RAAF simply will have to curtail its functions. So it is an extremely serious problem which does not seem to be comprehended by the Minister, as evidenced by his laid-back approach in this statement. One would have thought that that matter would have been highlighted in this statement, that there would be real assurances that the Government understands it and will do something about it, and that it could be seen that some initiative was being taken by the Government, but that is not the case. As I said, it is only mentioned towards the end of the statement, and what is said indicates that the Government has not grasped the magnitude and the urgency of the problem. The Minister makes claims in regard to a number of initiatives in relation to defence personnel. As I said, I think he sees these initiatives as a way of resolving the problem. Clearly, it is not. Clearly, the professional officers are concerned about it. Indeed, reference is made by the Minister to the fact that the CDF is undertaking a study to ascertain what other factors may be playing a part in this problem. The fact is that the Government and the Minister are overstating the effect of the initiatives the Government has taken. It seems to believe that the setting up of the permanent Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal is a major initiative. It is since decisions have been made by that Tribunal that the crisis has come upon the Services. The Government's so-called initiatives in this area are not at all effective. The comments that have been made about the 5.9 per cent pay rise that was granted indicate that very grave concern is felt following that rise; it certainly has not stemmed the concern. Personnel have expressed a good deal of disappointment and discontent about that pay rise and there has been a considerable consensus that this does not raise the pay level of members to that which they see is earned in civilian life. As I have said, this problem has really arisen since that decision was made; so it is not adequate, and a much more effective approach is required. However, the Government's breaking of its promises on the defence force retirements benefits, with the tax on superannuation lump sum payments and the recent decision of discounting the defence force retirement and death benefits pension by 2 per cent-the legislation has recently gone through this Parliament-contributed to the very grave dissatisfaction which is felt by personnel. Efforts at tackling housing or the Hamilton report on spouses of Service persons are dealing only with the fringes of this problem. The matter seems unlikely to be resolved in the way in which the Minister hopes. In his statement he attaches considerable significance to it. The statement is clearly a disappointment. It is adding virtually nothing to what is known about facts and figures, nuts and bolts, of defence issues. It is simply repeating the attitudes and views which have been expressed by the Government. We still await the Government's serious response to the Dibb report. Clearly the Government is here indicating a lack of real appreciation, as it continues to do, of the problems of Australian defence. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.34) —The Australian Democrats do not entirely agree with the Opposition on this matter. After all we can hardly expect the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to be coming up with fresh initiatives in such a difficult and expensive field every five minutes. We feel that in this statement the Government has consolidated, rationalised and put together the sorts of things it intends to carry out in the defence field. On the whole, those are things of which we would approve, just as we approve of the general thrust of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities which is aimed at a strong and independent Australia, with a degree of self-reliance which we have not had before and a capability to look after ourselves which the Democrats have been pressing for strongly in this Parliament for the last eight years and which was the motivation of our very strong opposition to having such materiel as a short deck aircraft carrier. This would have taken up huge amounts of our defence funding and not given us anything that would have been effective other than in terms of operations with our allies. I would like briefly to address that point because I think that it is important. It is important that we should be able to operate with our allies as long as they remain our allies and that is our considered government position. However, I think that our allies would probably be a lot happier with an Australia that had a degree of self-reliance and strength rather than a wandering child who every now and again had to say: `Please daddy, somebody is going to hit me. Come and help me'. That is the deplorable attitude towards defence which the present Opposition had when it was in government. That is simply not good enough for a number of reasons which I will mention when I get a little further into the report. It is an important report and it does deserve some debate in the Senate. In the statement the Minister is whistling in the dark to a rather large extent. I suppose he has to do that. He may not have gone to the Cabinet and agreed to his Budget being cut; in fact he probably did not, like most Ministers. He omits to say anywhere in his statement that the Budget cuts in defence will militate against progressive moves towards a self-reliant defence structure as was outlined in the Dibb report. That is beyond doubt. One does not buy defence materiel without money and there has to be considered community consensus that that be agreed upon. Without being unduly war-mongering or pushing the idea that we should bristle with weapons, I believe that the Australian public probably would regard it as a good option that we are self-reliant and that we are able to defend ourselves if that is at all possible. Of course we are now entering the stage when, with modern weapons including smart missiles, it is much more possible for a small country to defend itself effectively than it was in the past. Moreover, it is quite possible for a country to maintain a stance which is genuinely a defence structure because of the nature of that materiel which is not particularly well suited to foreign adventuring, to rushing off with our allies and to blowing up other people's countries which, after the Vietnam war, not too many people in Australia are very keen on. The Democrats agree that we should have a strong, independent defence capability. I find it a little cause for concern that on page 2 of the Minister's statement the Government excuses itself rather smugly from its clear duty to move significantly towards a self-reliant position with these words: The relationships also help to create a strategic environment which is relatively benign. Unlike many countries, we can say with confidence that it would take years for a potential enemy to develop the military capability to mount an attack on us of sufficient magnitude to destroy our society. I think that is unduly smug and unduly short sighted and I hope that is not a basic idea that forms government policy because it would be a great pity if it were. There is no way that a small middle power such as ourselves can assess the state of the world; nor can we guarantee that it will stay the same. We have comparatively little control over the total global situation where wars and alliances are concerned-and we should appreciate that fact and that the world can change very quickly. The event everybody rightly dreads and fears in the world is a major engagement between the Soviet Union and the United States of America which would almost certainly involve the use of nuclear weapons. This could create situations very different from what the Minister describes. It is possible to foresee a situation, as many people do, that nothing would survive in the world. Unfortunately, that is only too possible. However, there is perhaps a slight chance that if there were a limited nuclear engagement-if such a thing were possible; we do not really know; weapons have never been used on that scale-and the super-powers were badly mauled and Europe was virtually destroyed, it would be a very different world. Those things could happen. What would happen? Australia would be very much alone and isolated in that world and would be the victim of any kind of foreign adventure which might be mounted against us for any reason. I do not say that that is a likely contingency. We all hope that it is something that will never happen. But I think it is reasonable to put ourselves in the position where we can guard ourselves against it. We must accept that as a possibility in the world. We must be prepared to build up a modern, flexible and effective armed services with the well-trained people and the weapons to defend this country. The Minister uses the words: . . . mount an attack . . . of sufficient magnitude to destroy our society. Maybe he sees those last words as a kind of let out. But what about the situation that could arise if we were alone and there was a running sore of spasmodic invasions from the north which were mounted with any degree of persistence or organisation. Such attacks would certainly not destroy our society in a dramatic way in a few days or a few weeks. However, if we were in a situation where there had been a major world conflict and were trying to pull together what was left of our society, we would be placed in a very dangerous situation indeed. This is something which could be avoided. I am one of those people who believe-perhaps I am an optimist-that if this dreaded global nuclear war comes about some human beings and societies will survive. I would say that this society would be one of them. It will survive in our country towns and our widely dispersed areas, It will survive in areas which are largely self-sufficient. Perhaps it will survive in Tasmania. For the same reason, society may survive in parts of New Zealand. It will probably survive in some of the more decentralised areas of China. If that is the case, the basis of some sort of defence and some sort of organisation of government must be maintained. In that respect I think there is an argument for members of our armed forces to become skilled in all sorts of occupations. They should be the sort of people who are capable of putting in a small water-powered power plant where such a facility is needed; people who have some sort of engineering ability which may be of value to this country at some stage. So, I do not like the Government to make bland statements that we can say with confidence that it would take years for a potential enemy to develop the military capability to mount an attack of sufficient magnitude to destroy our society. It is quite a few years now since I was in Indonesia and watched members of the Indonesian air force put on a display. On the whole, I did not think that they were too bad although they tend to lose aircraft rather regularly, to crash them and break them up. However, I do not think it would pay for us to underestimate the capability for attack that that society has. Of course, Indonesia is now going in for modern material. Honourable senators in this place have probably heard me rather tediously argue for the need for Australia to get modern missile carriers such as the American Pegasus class hydrofoils which are made by Boeing. These are very fast, cheap, lightly manned and highly effective vessels which have more fire power than any ship we have in our navy at present. The vessels are armed with eight harpoon missiles on light weight launchers. I noticed in reading some material the other day that the Indonesians are now buying these weapons. They are very wise to do so because they are a very effective type of missile carrier in the modern world. It does not matter very much what type of platform a missile is launched from-the missile will do the rest provided that one has enough of them and provided the launch platform is stable. Of course, the hydrofoil conformation is interesting because it is stable in quite rough waves. It is a perfectly stable platform. It has speed and a low profile so it is not easily attacked. We need plenty of that sort of weapon here. The Indonesians understand what is needed and that is why they are buying this sort of thing. I do not think the Government should underestimate those sorts of possibilities. The Minister makes a further bland assumption on page 3 of his statement which annoys me greatly, as indeed did Senator Durack's comment on the same thing. At the bottom of page 3 of his statement the Minister, in talking about the problems of the armed services, says: Most importantly we have addressed key aspects of the conditions of Service personnel. This comes only a week after the Government and the Opposition connived together in this place-this included Senator Durack-to vote for the Government's disturbance, meddling and tampering with Service superannuation. They discounted Service superannuation. The Government broke a clear agreement that it would not tamper with something that was brought into Consolidated Revenue from an independent trust on trust. Only recently that was discounted by 2 per cent by a vote in the Senate. Yet, the Government has the gall to say that it is addressing key aspects of the conditions of Service personnel. It may be news to the Government but if it talked to many Service personnel-I am referring to the professionals such as instructor-sergeants around the place who, I might say, do not get paid all that well for the work that they do-it would find that they regard their superannuation as the bottom line, the mainstay of their future. On the whole, I think they do not care what else one does to them. However, they do not want to have that meddled with. The Government could not have meddled with anything more dangerous and damaging than that. I feel very angry with the Opposition for conniving at that and for allowing that legislation to be passed on the very specious grounds-- Senator Durack —Why did you support the lump sum superannuation tax? Senator MASON —I do not know whether Senator Durack made it but I heard it made by Senator Puplick. The Opposition claimed that this was a Budget Bill. Hell, what do they think they are here for. They are here to be members of one House of Parliament that governs this country, not to kow-tow to the Government on Budget Bills. To try to confuse the public about the difference between Supply and Budget Bills is, I suggest, dishonest at the very least. There is no question that the blocking or changing of a Budget Bill will bring about a situation such as that that brought about the downfall of the Whitlam Government in 1975. It is dishonest and specious to convey the impression to the public that somehow the Opposition is being holy by not blocking Budget Bills because it does not want to contrive that situation again. The real truth is that the Opposition wants the Government to do its dirty work for it. It wants to come back into government and find all of those nasty things done. That is why it is doing that kind of thing. Therefore, I suggest that this is not an argument that really ought to be brought up, especially by the Opposition, as being something of any great value. On page 5 of the statement the Minister talks about the roles and functions of the joint facilities which he says are being explained to Australians with a new honesty and a new respect for the interest taken by Australians in global strategic issues. He is dead right. Australians are interested in global strategic issues. But I do not think his statement can be justified. The past of the joint facilities is too well known and too well documented to permit any such easy conversion of the thinking public. They are all very concerned about what the role of the American bases-the joint facilities-are. I think the Government has a clear duty to explain more to people what it is all about. If the joint facilities are operated principally for our benefit as well as perhaps for the benefit of the Americans, there is not all that much need for undue secrecy about how these things are organised and done. Questions have been raised time and time again over the years which are begged and which are part of the national ethos. For example, the Government must tell the Australian people whether or not Pine Gap ever was controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency, as I think a former Labor Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, once said or, indeed, if that is the case, whether it is still controlled by the CIA. The background of the CIA is not such that any country would want that kind of influence operating actively within its society. Is it a fact, as has been alleged, that Pine Gap does eavesdrop on all the telephone calls coming in and out of Australia. This has been alleged and stated time and time again. Most Australians believe it happens. The Government has a clear duty to let us know whether or not this happens. After all, this is our country; we have sovereignty over it. There is every reason in the world why these matters should be addressed. Maybe they are a pack of lies. If they are a pack of lies, let the Government come out and say so. Let us understand the situation clearly. I think all of us would be very happy to know that. The Government, if it is determined to keep these facilities, must see that its authority on what happens in our own territory is absolute-not joint, but absolute. For instance, if the very low frequency arrays at North West Cape are now obsolete and are more useful in respect of communication with our own submerged submarines than with those of the United States nuclear fleet-these statements have been made-let that be made clear. Let it be said and made clear if they are not a significant part of the communication with American submerged submarines-I believe that is probably the case; the new technology is pretty well known. If that is the case, let the control of and access to the facility be Australianised. If that is the case, there is no reason why there should be this undue arcane degree of secrecy concerning those areas. Senator MacGibbon —You are saying that North West Cape is no longer a nuclear target, then. Senator MASON —I am not saying that North West Cape is not a nuclear target. I am glad that Senator MacGibbon raised the point because it is a very important one. It is a fact-I think I can give him references on this; some time I will do it-that if there is a nuclear war, North West Cape would have to be a nuclear target, as will its fellow stations in the United States of America, because they do in fact represent a second line. In other words, a fall back position to using VFL arrays to communicate with those submarines in other circumstances. Therefore, it would be rational and reasonable for an enemy to say: `Okay, this is something which is a backstop'. There is also the other point: While the enemy presumably does not know what is there and if the security is good enough to prevent the enemy from knowing what is there, it is not going to know whether it is worth attacking or not. In that situation the enemy will attack it; it will become a nuclear target. I am glad that the honourable senator raised that point. It is a very important one that deserves some clarification. I do not think it really changes the situation. If the Government took my line and said perfectly clearly to the Russians, `Okay, come and have a look at the place, it is communicating with our submarines and it is not important in the sense of communicating with American nuclear submarines', it probably would not be a nuclear target. The secrecy, the aura of tight security around it, makes it a nuclear target. We are told: `You can't come here. You can't see this and you must not know a thing about this'. Even Australians are not allowed to go there. Therefore it must be important, and if it is important it must be attacked. I think that is an area that the Government might well consider clearing up, as I think that would probably reduce the threat to Australia. The references to the radar surveillance of our northern approaches-referred to on page 9 of the printed copy of this statement-to which Senator Durack referred, are very important. I felt that he did not give them due regard. I think none of us has any desire to claim the technical expertise to understand this, but I am prepared to believe that there are those working on the project who have and that indeed we probably have got the basis here for a very important situation which can, for the first time, as the report says: provide comprehensive coverage of air and shipping movements throughout the air/sea gap to our north, far more cheaply than any other system. That is always desirable. I suggest to Senator Durack that we ought to note that sentence because it is a statement of the Government's intent and I think the Senate has a right to follow it up and make sure that that does happen, as I think it probably will. It is the Government's intent then that is good and the system must be completed rapidly even though it is expensive. That will then end the absurd situation which has applied in the past where we could be invaded in a dozen places by a small army and probably never know anything about it for days on end. That has been, and remains, the situation in Australia, and a very dangerous situation it is when we consider that our supply lines to our remote northern and western areas, with all the effective forces we have now, are a hell of a lot longer than probably those of anybody who might seek to invade us. So we might find ourselves after some lapse of time on the sticky end of the situation rather than otherwise. So it is vital that that surveillance system should be completed. The cost-half a billion dollars-is expensive, but there again I think the Australian people would accept that and not regard it as particularly expensive. It is a matter of real bottom line security. We could comfortably know that if somebody tried to invade or enter this country we would be immediately warned of it and able to take some preventative action. I again think that the Opposition has not given anywhere near enough support to the Dibb report in its areas where it attempts to create a flexible strike force which could then go quickly to that area and deal with any kind of invasion. I think it is only reasonable and honest to give the Government and Mr Dibb credit there. That is something which is valuable and important. I think that it is very, very unlikely that we will be invaded from Antarctica or New Zealand. If there is ever a threat to this country it will come from the north west or the north. Therefore we must be prepared to be able to move into those areas forces which are highly professional, highly trained and as well armed as they can be. And that would include an army with a very large and important airborne parachute capability. It would also involve having weapons in the northern part of the country which were capable, in the first instance, of deterring those invasion forces as quickly as possible. The knowledge that we have in sufficient numbers aircraft such as the FA18 and perhaps small ships which are efficient missile platforms would be sufficient in itself, I think, to deter any attempt at a seaborne or airborne invasion of Australia. I think a seaborne invasion is the only thing that we could look at as being practicable. I do not think it would be feasible for any country that I can think of in our neighbourhood to invade this country and to supply its troops by air. Therefore the ability to strike at and destroy ships is very important. We have missiles, and the Harpoon missile is one we have standardised. It is expensive but efficient. There is no reason why we should not have as many carriers, or as many decks, as the statement calls them, as we reasonably can to convey those weapons at an invader. People talk about the Phalanx system which we now have. Phalanx is fine; it throws huge quantities of lead or sometimes depleted uranium in the form of slugs at an incoming missile, and it can destroy that missile. It can probably destroy a second one or even a third, but if a large salvo-eight, ten or fifteen-of missiles is attacking a ship armed with Phalanx, there is no way in the world that most of those will not hit home and destroy that ship. There is no defence system capable of preventing that. That, I think, should give us some guide as to the way we ought to regard our defences; we should have vast, flexible carriers which can attack in large numbers with missiles. That brings me to the final point which I want to discuss in this report, which I think is also very important, and that is the references to the new surface combatant, which is a very interesting statement. I have never struck that phrase before. The new surface combatant is a new generation of warships which the Government is planning for Australia and which are very important. The Minister says: . . . I intend to seek Government approval to build, in Australia, up to eight ships to meet the requirements identified by the Navy and by Dibb for a large number of light, capable vessels to operate throughout Australia's surrounding maritime areas. The importance of this project should not be underestimated. It is comparable in size to the submarine project. It will have higher Australian content. It will have greater export potential. That is an important point, because when I was talking with Mr O'Flynn, the Defence Minister, in Wellington, New Zealand, he raised this point with me. He said that if Australia were making small ships and things of that kind it would be very much in his country's interests to buy them because there would be compatibility. That is very important to us. So I think we have an export possibility here, not only to New Zealand but also to the other Pacific countries. That point is not mentioned here but I suggest that it is something that the Minister could think about. There is one thing which the statement does not say and which I think ought to be brought home and ironed out as soon as possible: These ships, right from the start, should have missile capability and we should not make the same terrible mistake that we made with the Fremantle class ships, which are for their time of building and size first class small warships which are quite capable of being efficient missile carriers. As they stand now, I think each ship has a World War II type Bofors gun on the foredeck. Officers have told me that when there is any sort of a chop and the ships are travelling upwind the guns are incapable of putting a shot over even a Taiwanese fishing boat's bows. There is no excuse for this. This is a terribly bad piece of planning. The idea apparently was to make a small patrol ship which would be rather more comfortable to travel in than the ones we had before, and that idea is laudable to that extent. But having got those ships it would at least have been reasonable to equip them. I was aboard HMAS Fremantle not long after she came into commission and I was shown the places where control systems and missiles could be put. There is room in the ships to do the work. If we get on to this new surface combatant vessel, let us for heaven's sake not turn out another abortion, a so-called warship which is not capable of fighting; let us provide it with that capability of attack if an invading fleet ever tried to reach this country. I am no particular propagandist for Boeing and I should not be pushing its interests-I have not got any shares in Boeing, I will say that right now-but we should look at the Pegasus class hydrofoil, which is now being built in a stretched out version and which has much better and more comfortable crew quarters than the original Pegasus, which frankly was worse than most submarines, and that was a grave deficiency. There are certain advantages. The engines are the same as those in the FFG frigates, so there is compatibility there. A lot of ships can be built here under licence, and the engines, the guns-Oto melara 76 mm-and the front foil are about the only things that would have to be imported. These ships are very lightly manned, something like 21 or 22 people, and they are relatively inexpensive. As I said earlier, they are each capable of carrying eight Harpoon missiles on lightweight launchers. They have the quick firing 76 mm Oto Melara gun, which can engage an enemy quite separately, as an automatic quick firing gun. It is a very useful facility. They also have foil launchers which enable them to be pretty good at dodging missiles. There is a point there. These ships are extremely fast. Their top speed is classified, but they are probably the fastest warships in the world. Once they are foil-borne, they have enormous speed of acceleration and are capable of moving well out of the way before incoming missiles find the foil. They are less susceptible to damage than, perhaps, a ship with a displacement hull. The general nimbleness and the low profile of the ship when it is foil-borne make it, of course, much less likely to be a victim, even for wire-guided torpedoes, because they can outrun the torpedoes without any difficulty. I still say that the Government ought to have that flexibility of thinking when it comes to consider the role of the surface combatant. It should not necessarily feel that it ought to have the all-age ships the same. There is a difference of role, a difference of necessity and a difference of requirement in Australian waters, and different circumstances which should be taken into account. Beyond those points, the Democrats feel that the statement is an interesting recapitulation-I agree largely with Senator Durack-of what the Government has said it is doing in the defence field. We think that the Government is going along the right lines. There are small deficiencies and problems, some of which I have outlined. On the whole, if the Government takes those considerations into account, we might get somewhere at last, after all the decades, the centuries, of creating an Australia which is, for the very first time, reasonably capable of defending itself. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.01) —The paper presented this afternoon by Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, is a very immature document. It is strong on emotion and weak on reason. It is a very disappointing document. It is the sort of document that would be presented most fittingly to an Australian Labor Party branch meeting in the western suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne. Those on this side of the chamber regret very much that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has not maintained the bipartisan approach to defence that we seek to maintain. We try to emulate the example set by Sir James Killen for a bipartisan approach. Defence simply cannot be a matter of party politics. This document just reeks of party politics and cheap point scoring. Defence cannot be a matter of party politics because it involves the security of everyone. Everyone contributes to it with his tax moneys and, if the need arises, with his life. A government needs to have the support of the whole community with its defence policy. All the defence forces in the world are not worth anything unless the government is seen to have the political will to use the defence forces it possesses. The government cannot have that political will unless it has the support of the community. If it has a good defence force, if it has the political will to use it when the essential interests of the country are challenged, we have peace and we do not end up in the business of fighting wars and all the terrible consequences that come from that. This paper incorporates many of the holy cows, the mythology of the Labor Party. It starts with a statement that we are getting the best defence that the Government thinks we can afford. The proposition that Defence might need a little more money is ridiculed by the Minister in his statement. Money spent on defence, provided it is spent constructively, is money well spent. The state of having no war is the cheapest state we can have. Any war we get involved with involves us in enormous costs, in lives and in money. One of the central themes of this report is the claim of undercapitalisation. Senator Durack made the point that this was a blatantly dishonest statement. It is blatantly dishonest, because the Government simply has no choice in the amount of money it has to spend to honour the defence contracts that the Government has. Those contracts, by the way, were written by a previous government. This Government has not faced up to the fact that as the cost of new capital equipment has risen, it has continued to cut into that part of the budget in the defence vote that goes for operational capabilities. When we started this some years ago, we did that with the clear expectation that it was for the short term. We were also devoting a lower percentage to capital equipment. We knew that in time it would go from about 17 per cent-a figure cited by the Minister-in the early 1980s, up to the 30 per cent that it is running at now; but we had the intention of increasing the defence vote so that the operational training and capabilities of the Services were not cut back. But the Government has not made that compensatory move, with a consequence that we have the morale problem and the diminution in capability of the defence forces which characterises them today. The paper puts the case for self-reliance. From my first day in this Senate over eight years ago, I have always supported the view that Australia's first responsibility is to itself and that we could do a great deal more to develop our own independent defence position. I do that in a responsible way, recognising the fact that in a high technology age we have to be supported by other countries in respect of weapons systems and munitions. In this paper, the Minister uses a self-reliant posture in a jingoistic way, trying to pander to the Left of the Labor Party and all the pacifist, non-aligned movement feelings that there are within his Party's ranks. There is a great statement on page 2 about the fact that we are living in a relatively benign region. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was a benign region 10 years ago, but the tide has turned against us. Looking at the nations that surround us, we have difficulties. New Zealand has gone down a path that has taken it out of an effective defence alliance with Australia. We have Father Lini in Vanuatu doing deals with the Soviets. We will almost certainly see port facilities granted to the Soviets in the near future, and quite probably landing rights for Soviet aircraft. We have the French muddling in New Caledonia-persisting with the techniques that they used in Algeria and, before that, in Vietnam, totally mishandling an independence movement. We will quite likely see Libyan insurgents and other people operating in that country. In Papua New Guinea we have a rundown in the Administration. There are internal problems, and there is a breakdown in law and order. There is a difficult border relationship between New Guinea and Indonesia. The Philippine's problems are far from resolved. Mrs Aquino is trying to cope with a very virulent communist New People's Army. The future control of the Philippines is anyone's guess. Our relationship with Indonesia has been exacerbated by the incompetence of this Government in its foreign relations. The 65-year-old President Suharto, after 20 years of responsible rule of Indonesia, will be replaced within the next five to seven years. No one knows what policies will be followed by the Indonesians after that. On top of all of that, we have a very active exercise by the Soviets to project power both politically and militarily into the area. Yet the Minister makes the claim that we are now in a very benign region. He links that to the old hoary cliche that we have had 10 year's peace, that there is no threat for 10 years and all that sort of thing. It is very dear to the Labor Party. The Minister ought to read a bit of history. Things can change, and they can change very dramatically. From the night of 7-8 December 1941, when the two Royal Australian Air Force squadrons were bombed in Kota Bharu, in Malaya, as it was then, it was under eight weeks till Rabaul was taken by the Japanese on 23 January 1942. That was with the very poor transport and very poor communications systems that existed over 40 years ago. This Government has got this country's defences in the position where we simply have no ready reaction capability. The Operational Deployment Force can project only a brigade after one month's warning, and it has no sustainability in the field. In simple terms, it cannot fight for more than a matter of days. The Air Force cannot fight for more than a couple of days, nor can the Navy, because we are holding no real stocks of munitions or of missiles in this country. I want to deal with the point in the report where the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Sinclair, the shadow Minister for Defence, is quoted-and in a way that appears to be quite damaging to the Opposition's case. What was being said by Mr Sinclair-which is lifted out of context-was the very important point that before we worry about how we are going to spend money on the Department of Defence or any other department, the first thing is to get the economy right, because we cannot have an effective defence force unless we have a strong economy. I will not take the time of the Senate this afternoon to reflect on the incompetence of this Government in the economic field. What we would do with the Department of Defence is eliminate the waste that led to the loss of $70m by the bungling of the trainer program this year. That $70m has not given one cent of benefit to the Australian community. We would streamline to remove the incompetence in the vast civilian bureaucracy in the Department of Defence. In the statement, a great deal was made about the percentage of the vote this year going to equipment. As I said before, the Government is locked into this contractual position. In the main, the contracts were written by the previous Government. The present Government simply has no alternative but to honour the obligations that it has to those contracts. The position is made worse by the disastrous handling of the economy. For example, when we wrote the contract for the FA18s in the early 1980s the Australian dollar was worth about $US1.25. This year's estimate to the Department of Defence used a trade-weighted average of $A0.52 for $US1. That has more than doubled the cost of the equipment that we have on order. The trade-weighted average is down to 52c simply because overseas people have no confidence in the way Keating and Hawke are running this country. The Minister talks about the equipment that he will buy. I would have thought that one of the first requirements of a Minister for Defence, as part of his independent posture, is to buy what he can in Australia. Yet, in the last 12 months we have seen many hundreds of millions of dollars being spent unnecessarily overseas on equipment. The first matter was the Air Force trainer contract in respect of which we lost $70m-with no benefit at all-on an Australian design. The management of that project, not its concept, was at fault. If the Government had any ability it would have made something out of the situation and saved the $300m or $350m it will spend on buying a Swiss aircraft. We could have bought Australian, provided far more work for Australia and created a nucleus for the Australian aircraft industry. Another point is the purchase of the new Steyr rifle for the Army. There is absolutely no hurry to get this weapon. There are in this country people who can design and build rifles and small arms. They were not considered by the Department of Defence because the Government was not interested in what Australians can do. We proved well over 40 or 50 years ago that we could build arms. Something as simple as a rifle, the equivalent of a bow and arrow in earlier ages, must be built in Australia, Again, we have written a contract for hundreds of millions of dollars for an Austrian rifle, when that was unnecessary. The recent order to buy new trucks to add to the purchase of Mercedes Benz unimogs also could have been completed in Australia. The Army truck that is being replaced, the International F1, needs only a diesel engine. Either International, if still in business, General Motors-Holden's Ltd or the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd could build a suitable and adequate truck for the Australian defence forces; but again, the Minister goes overseas with a contract that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I will not start on the armoured personnel carriers and the nonsensical position we are in by sticking with a 30-year-old first generation vehicle. We will buy kits from overseas, again probably at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, to modify them. I will briefly deal with the over the horizon radar because from a news point of view it is obviously the thing about which the Minister will puff his chest out and hold a Press conference in an hour or so. He will make a big thing out of it. The first thing to say about the over the horizon radar, the Jindalee program, is that there is nothing new about over the horizon radar. It works by using a high frequency signal which bounces off the ionosphere, is reflected down to the earth and then is reflected back along the same path. It has been looked at for very many years-since the inception of radar-but the problems of making it work are such that it has not been adopted as a universal substitute for conventional shorter wavelength radars. Australia's peculiar situation, with the absence of the borealis and so on and our geographic position, optimises the use of an over the horizon radar system. Undeniably, this is of very great benefit to Australia's defence, but in no sense is it a complete and effective radar coverage. There has to be some priority. We must have radar coverage around the northern sectors of the Australian continent because at present we have no idea what is coming into or going out of this country. We are within range of USSR aircraft operating out of Cam Ranh Bay. We are within range of the Indian BEAR Fs that are operating from Indian bases. They can overfly a large part of our continent. I do not doubt that they do so from time to time, particularly on electronic intelligence flights. We need to know what is going on. Our first Jindalee system is in its development phase. The big problem is that it requires a very complex computer program which analyses signals and makes sense out of them. The system must be made reliable and predictive. We have years of work in sorting out the first Jindalee system. To go ahead now and buy another two or three systems means that we will put all our eggs in the one basket, a basket that we know very well technically has a lot of holes. We ought to develop the one radar station we have at present and buy some aircraft for airborne early warning. Even when Jindalee is worked up to its peak of operational efficiency, it is only a trip-wire. It is very easy to jam that system. It must cope with changes in the ionospheric layer, which is unstable. It is subject to diurnal variations which will affect any high frequency radio signal. Targets which are moving circumferentially and which have no Doppler shift cannot be identified. Having said that, it is is a very good trip-wire. We will know when something is out there; but we then have to go out and find out what it is. We find out what is out there with an AEW aircraft. I am opposed to buying two or three more over the horizon radars at present because there is no justification for them; there are higher priorities in the radar surveillance field. The ministerial statement also refers to the conversion of four Boeing 707s for in-flight refuelling purposes. This is long overdue but, again, it is too little and it may be too late. People think that if we buy one or two tanker aircraft we can supply the whole of the Air Force. One tanker cannot be assigned on any mission; there must always be two. There must always be a back up. It might do the Senate some good to realise that, on the first bombing operation from Ascension Island to the Falkland Islands, one Victor bomber of the Royal Air Force was assigned and 16 tanker aircraft were required to support that one strike aircraft. That is an extreme case, but the point I make is that four aircraft give only a training facility, not an operational facility. We need many more of them. The obvious way to provide that capacity is by using internal tankage in the C130s or, prefer- ably, to buy new ones that have the wing plumbing to take a fuselage tank and dispense it. The proposition is also defective because the tankers would service only the F18s, and the F18s provide us with no deterrent capability. I want to pick up the point that the previous speaker laboured about flitting around in Pegasus patrol boats that are an absolute technical and operational failure. The US Navy had an order for a large number of Pegasus boats. It received its first four or six and then chopped the order because the boats were hopelessly expensive, short ranged and generally useless. They are used to chase people on surfboards in the Caribbean. They are not used in an operational role. The previous speaker raised the point about raiding parties coming to the north of Australia in a harassing role and said that these people could be chased away with patrol boats. We will not chase them away with patrol boats. The only solution is to remove the bases from which they operate. To do that one will have to use F111s. It cannot be done with F18s. The need to provide boom refuelling for the F111s is as important as the need to provide probe and drogue refuelling for the F18s. Yet the Government makes no attempt at all to provide this most necessary air-refuelling for the F111s. The deterrent capability of the Australian defence forces is its prime role. Unlike the proposition put forward in the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities that we go back to a garrison Australia with barbed wire starting on Bathurst Island, letting aggressors seize the initiative and legally come to within 12 miles of the Australian coast, as they can, with offensive ships and aircraft because they are legally entitled to, and trying to defeat these forces when they cross onto the Australian mainland, we on this side of the chamber believe that we must have a deterrent capability. This means that we can strike at the bases from which any potential enemy might operate against us. The Minister refers to the new submarine program. I am sorry that he does not go into some details. This program is subjected to very considerable cost overruns. We are involved with two designers, HDW/IKL and Kockum's. They have never built boats of the complexity or size that Australia requires. They are meeting technical problems. It is a very high risk program. It is also a very expensive program. The Australian taxpayer is entitled to some explanation as to how this program is going. We on this side of the chamber are very concerned about statements from the Minister supporting the proposition in the Dibb report that, as the program is subject to cost overruns, we could accept some reduction in capability. Being diesel electric submarines, the improvement in operational performance these submarines have over the existing Oberon boats is marginal. It is only a matter of degree. There is no quantum jump at all in what the new submarines will do. Considering the great sum of money that is involved, if we are to cut that capability-and cut it probably to the same or less capability of the Oberon boats-it simply does not make sense to proceed. The Minister seems to have adopted a very irrational stance with respect to these new submarines. He is very emotionally involved with them. He reacts to any criticism of the program. He will not even answer legitimate questions about what is going on. One is left with the impression that he is emotionally committed to signing a contract for these submarines, irrespective of whatever technical or financial problems are involved, and wants to get it done before the election next year. The Minister should reflect on the fact that Sir James Killen was in a similar position with respect to the F18s. It is a matter of public record, in an article by the Chief Defence Scientist, Professor Fink, that Professor Fink went to Sir James Killen with a problem with the F18 some months before the election in 1980. He said: `I need more time to consider this problem and make sure that we get it right before we sign the contract, but I know, Minister, that you want to sign this contract to get the benefit for the coming election'. The Minister of the day said to him: `You fix the technical problems. It is quite improper for me to try to get any political milage out of such an important contract by signing it before the election'. It is a matter of history that that is what took place. The contract was signed after the election was held. There is a lot of verbiage about the pay and conditions of the Services. People are leaving the Australian defence forces in record numbers because they are not appreciated. They feel that they are wasting their time. They have been subjected to pay restraint, their allowances have eroded to the point where they no longer have much meaning. Simple things such as re-engagement allowances are not considered. Little things that can be done to improve the lot of the servicemen meet no favourable response from the Department. The consequence is that morale is worse than it has ever been in our peacetime history. We probably have fewer people with defence obligations in Australia today per head of population than we had at the time of Federation. Recommendations of the Hamilton report on Supporting Service Families, which was a good report, are funded to a miserable degree in this year's Budget. I forget the figures, but I think out of a commitment of $20m to fix the problems, this Budget provides about $2m. It is totally inadequate. It is not a sincere approach to the problem. The situation of the reserves is abysmal. The number of effective reserves is about half the number it should be. Probably about 15,000 or 17,000 reservists are efficient with respect to their training obligations. That is because the pay and conditions are so poor. I could go on for ages. The stewardship of the Department of Defence under this Government is an abysmal failure. We on this side of the chamber think that this paper is quite inadequate and lacks responsibility. The subject demands a far more responsible approach than this paper gives it. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(4.26) —I commend the Government's basic concept of self-reliance in presenting this paper to the Parliament. However, it comes as something of a contradiction when it is so firmly rooted within the framework of the ANZUS alliance. There is a contradiction in terms: How can we be self-reliant if our first loyalty is towards the ANZUS alliance? I believe that our view of the Soviets is quite different from the United States view and would probably be more in line with the Japanese view. Japan sees the Soviet Union not as an enemy, as it is perceived by the United States, but as a vulnerable adversary with which dialogue must be maintained. That is the position most Australians would have with regard to the Soviet Union. Certainly our defence and foreign relations policies should not be so influenced by the United States that its enemies immediately become our enemies. In the same way, when on page 2 of the report the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) talks about regional security, we have to be very mindful of the needs of our South East Asian and south-west Pacific neighbours which, I believe, have been shamefully ignored by the United States in recent years. I believe that the recent buildup in the militarisation of the Pacific, to which Senator MacGibbon referred, is largely due to the fact that the countries in that region have felt abandoned by the United States, certainly in the economic area, and that for their security they need economic security. Many of those countries rely, for example, mainly on fishing. In that regard the United States has an appalling record. Its tuna boats have poached fish from the Pacific island nations. Now that the Soviet Union has entered into fishing agreements, it is doing just what the United States Government should have done many years ago-concluding proper fishing agreements for which it pays fishing rights to the countries in whose waters it wants to fish. So I believe that we need to keep in perspective the fact that relationships within our region should be based on the needs of the peoples within the region and not on perceptions as they might emanate from the United States. The countries in the region have cried out for economic security. I believe that cuts in foreign aid, as were brought down in the Budget, are also greatly regrettable. We have shown a lot of concern, for example, for the starving in Africa this year and have worried about growing instability in the South Pacific region because of the Soviets getting a possible toe-hold there. But at the same time, the island states of the South Pacific have repeatedly told us that their real security lies in economic security and in aid being channelled into community development projects where appropriate. We have cut aid to the South Pacific by 9 per cent this year, while military aid to the region has increased by 70 per cent. We should take into account the fact that overseas aid is a very good way to build good relationships in the region. Self-help development projects, not the provision of more military aid, would be appropriate in producing the economic security for which the nations in the region are crying out. I think it would also help to reduce the threat perceptions in the region if we were seen to be assisting countries in our region by involving ourselves in foreign aid programs rather than in military aid programs or by the acquisition of sophisticated, long range offensive equipment, as we are doing at the moment. That only increases the threat perception in the region and gives great difficulties to our neighbours who, I am sure, would like to see us in a much more benevolent light. I think we need to consider the nature of modern warfare, nuclear warfare aside. Since the Second World War, there have been very few wars which have been conducted after the declaration of a war. Wars have emerged as either wars of liberation or as struggles by minority groups or by terrorists. Most of these wars are not declared and peace treaties are not signed at the end of them. We have to take into account the kind of modern warfare that is being waged and consider the threat perception to Australia in that light. It is unlikely that any nation will attempt to undertake a full scale invasion of Australia. There have been many Government reports to that effect, particularly the 1981 Katter report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which said that the only country that had the capability of launching such a full scale attack with any likelihood of success was our great friend and ally the United States of America. So we do need to consider that if other countries have Australia on a hit list, particularly the Soviet Union, it is only because of our alliance relationship with the United States. If the Soviet Union wants what Australia has, it can trade with us much more cheaply than it can go to war with us over our resources, for example. We need to look at the defence equipment which this report is mostly concerned with. We buy 70 per cent of our equipment from the United States-second only to Saudi Arabia in dependence on the United States for military hardware. I agree with what Senator MacGibbon has just said about the need to produce much more equipment within Australia. We can do that and also diversify our purchasing power by looking to other countries. In this respect, the Government must be commended for deciding to build the eight new light frigates in Australia and also for letting the submarine contract to a country other than the United States. The recent history of the treatment of Australia by the United States in economic areas, particularly in relation to sugar and wheat deals, has shown that we are indeed naive if we think that Australia should get a good deal from the United States merely because we are involved in a military alignment with it. There is no reason why Australian farmers should get a better deal than American farmers, but this fact has highlighted for many Australians the absurd situation that exists between the United States and Australia where we buy 70 per cent of our defence equipment from it and it buys virtually nothing from us. It is a very unequal imbalance indeed. We need to look at our defensive defence capability. That is what is actually needed for Australia. Essentially we need weapons that are primarily defensive in nature and not offensive. I totally reject the concept of forward defence put forward by the Opposition and which has just been repeated by Senator MacGibbon-that we need to be ready to go out and demolish the launching pads from which people may be thinking of mounting attacks on Australia. That is exactly the kind of thinking that increases tension levels within the region and it needs to be totally rejected. We also need to look at the magical mythical 3 per cent of gross domestic product traditionally spent on defence. I think it is a level that is artificially maintained and that if the defence dollars in this country were spent more wisely and tailored to Australia's unique needs, we would not even need to spend that amount of money on defence. That is not to say that we should not be looking after the Services in Australia and the people who are involved in defending this country. Of course we need to do that, but I reject the notion that we need to be spending a great deal of money on long range offensive weapons systems which in many cases are tailored to suit the needs and requirements of the United States military rather than to suit the requirements of Australia's own unique needs. We need also to look at Australia's role in the arms trade. Just recently the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) made a statement to the United Nations in New York where he very strongly called for an international agreement to ban all arms sales to countries at war, preparing for war or using arms to suppress human rights. There would not be any country in the region to which Australia is selling arms that does not come under one of those three categories. Next week the Cooksey report will be brought down in the Parliament. That report is referred to on page 15 of Mr Beazley's statement brought down today. That report recommends that Australia should increase its level of armaments manufacture and get into the business of exporting arms. Australia is already twelfth on the world list of arms exporters-it falls a long way beyond the most important of them-and the countries to which we export our arms are largely countries that are using those weapons to suppress human rights and they are very largely countries in our own region; for example, the Philippines and Indonesia. I think that we should look again at trying to make money out of that kind of situation. It is totally morally reprehensible and the Foreign Minister said that very clearly in his statement to the United Nations on 1 October. There is a great contradiction between what he has said as Minister for Foreign Affairs, with an understanding of the need for good neighbourly relations within the region, and Mr Beazley's statement which will be further exacerbated by the Cooksey report when it comes out next week or whenever it comes out. What I believe we need to be looking for in Australia is civilian based defence. That does not rate one word of mention in this report and there is not one cent for funding the teaching of conflict resolution and negotiation skills to diplomats. There is not one word about increasing the level of foreign languages that our diplomats speak when they are sent to foreign posts. This is the kind of good relationship area which is totally ignored by the Department of Defence. These things are much cheaper, I might add, than the procurement of expensive and sophisticated weapons systems which are not necessarily going to serve Australia's unique defence needs but which are, as I said before, only going to support our debilitating nuclear alliance with the United States. It is that area which I find is so totally missing from the report and I think it is a great shame that we are not looking at all at civilian based defence and not looking at all the negotiating skills or conflict resolution mechanisms by which a lot of the tensions that build up in this part of the world-indeed, in any part of the world-can be averted. I believe that Australia has a great opportunity to serve the world community in this respect, if only we would spend money to teach those skills because, indeed, they do need to be taught to diplomats, who otherwise flounder around in diplomatic language and worry about crossing t's and dotting i's and not really getting very far in substantial negotiations because they have not got the skills. I think we have just seen an example of that in Reykjavik where the leaders of the two super-powers would have done very well to have prepared much better for their summit than going there, each with a position that was intransigent, so that they could not come out with any substantial agreement. I would also like to refer to the statement on page 5 about the joint facilities in Australia to which Senator Mason has already referred. The three-line comment on the so-called joint facilities is insulting in the extreme because Mr Beazley talks about a new honesty in relation to the bases, but he gives it only three lines. It is a shameful lie that there has been any new honesty in dealing with the matter of these so-called joint facilities. There has been no official word about what goes on in the joint facilities except for the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in June 1984 to the Parliament which told us nothing that we did not already know and which was carefully checked by Washington and the Pentagon before it was made. Subsequently, of course, there have been the glossy photographs of Pine Gap, which Mr Beazley was very proud to present to the media some months ago. He must have in mind the notion that a picture is worth a thousand words. But again the pictures did not tell us anything. They just showed us these magnificent radomes, photographed in the very best light, and told us nothing about what actually goes on underneath the covers of those radomes. There can be no sovereignty in this country without information. The people are being kept in the dark and that is a totally unacceptable situation. Australia's security needs would be best served by being good neighbours within our region, not by being tied into the debilitating nuclear alliance which increases the threat perception for not only our region but also for the whole world. Australia should be working from an independent and nuclear free position, which would be a great step towards security through peace. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.39) —The Senate is debating a post-Budget statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Whatever else this statement is, it is not a statement on defence policy. It is one of the most curious statements I have seen before the Senate. It is essentially a propaganda statement which, indeed, contains a considerable number of inaccuracies and assertions that do not stand the test. It gives a new meaning to the term tautology. It uses words to confuse. The opening statement, which I think says `whatever the threat, we have to do the best we can with the money we have got', reads: The defence policy of this Government is to pursue a disciplined relationship between strategy and force structure within the constraints of what is financially feasible in a period of economic stringency. I commend that as being the superlative in tautology. I would have thought that could have been expressed slightly better. The ministerial statement is based upon the strategic guidance that was given to the Dibb review by the Government. It contained these kinds of assertions: Australia faces no identifiable direct military threat and there is every prospect that our favourable security circumstances will continue. . . . . There is no conceivable prospect of any power contemplating invasion of our continent and subjugation of our population. . . . . It would take at least 10 years and massive external support for the development of a regional capacity to threaten us with substantial assault. . . . . These judgments about warning time which have been endorsed by official strategic guidance for over a decade now are key concepts for our defence planning . . . . . . . No country has ever blockaded a continent surrounded by seas such as Australia. . . . . Most military activities involving disruption of Australian trade could be handled by evasive routing . . . Australia has the potential to become highly self-sufficient in basic commodities. Those are quotes from the strategic guidance and they are repeated in this so-called post-Budget statement. It states also: Unlike many countries we can say with confidence that it would take years for a potential enemy to develop the military capacity to mount an attack on us of sufficient magnitude to destroy our society. We also realise however that capabilities for low level threats both to our national interests and those of our friends and neighbours do exist within the region. One needs to look at history. It has been said that we learn from history that we learn nothing from history. Certainly this Government and this statement can prove that. I remind the Senate that over the whole course of history-whether it be Pitt the Younger, Lloyd George, Curtin or any other person-we have never been able to predict a threat. I ask the Senate to remember these things: There was no significant warning time of the Berlin blockade, the Korean War, the Malayan emergency, the Iran-Iraq conflict and the invasion of Afghanistan. All those things happened in modern times. I remind the Senate that the escalation of the Vietnamese war-and the development with Russian arms of the North Vietnamese Army as the world's third strongest army-was not foreseen. Coming closer to this comforting thought that nothing could happen in our region for 10 years, one should remember that even in 1939-40 nobody believed that the Japanese offered any threat to the area. The military appreciations that I studied to get my Army commission were full of statements that the Japanese could not go to war, they had myopic vision and they had an industry that could not survive. Such statements were being made within a year or two of the war. Closer to the war-not 10 years, not five years but 305 days from the biggest war we have fought so far, World War II, the war in which 40 million people were killed-on 2 November 1938 in another place the then Leader of the Australian Labor Party, a great Australian, John Curtin, said these things: Defence expenditure must depend entirely upon the conditions which prevail in the world from time to time. Obviously that must be the position. I say that any increase of defence expenditure after the Munich Pact so far as Australia is concerned appears to me to be an utterly unjustifiable and hysterical piece of panic propaganda. That was said 305 days before the greatest war this world has seen, before 40 million people were put to death. This is no reflection on John Curtin; it is a reflection on the nonsense of governments that depend upon the theory of foreseeable threat. Of course that theory is defective in itself because of a fundamental; that is, the lead time for the purchase and acquisition of modern warships, aircraft, equipment and the training of key personnel is far longer in years than any telescope can foresee a threat. We must understand that the forces in existence today in a country, together with the decisions made today for their expansion or contraction and re-equipment, are the actualities available to a country-to Australia-in most of the decade ahead. What we have put in an order for will take the best part of this decade to be delivered. It takes four years to train an army sergeant and six or seven years to train a subaltern or army captain. It takes seven to 10 years to order and to get a warship. Therefore, it is absolute nonsense to say that we are not in any way vulnerable. The defence demands of a country should be looked at on three levels: Firstly, what role shall we play, in however small a way, in trying to preserve world peace. We must try to stop all significant wars breaking out. We must try to stop not only nuclear wars, no matter where that first missile may land; we must try to stop any conventional war involving the interests of nuclear nations because undoubtedly that could escalate into a nuclear conflict. We now face a problem that no other people in the world's history have ever faced-how to outlaw war. Since 1945 there have been no less than 120 conflicts in 71 nations with 20 million people killed in conventional wars. These were not nuclear wars but 20 million people were killed. Every year the money spent on conventional arms, not nuclear arms, amounts to $800 billion. In fact, that is nearly 90 per cent of the money spent on all arms. Paradoxically, nuclear arms are the cheap ones in this situation. Most of the money spent on armaments is spent by countries purchasing arms to shore up their particular kind of dictatorship and hegemony. We must look at our role in maintaining peace. There is no sense at all in isolation or neutrality, in saying we will have nothing on our shores, no ships in our harbour and no installations, because no nation, however isolated, can be immune from a nuclear war. No matter where it starts, no nation can survive a nuclear war even if the missiles do not land on that nation. The facts of the nuclear winter are known to us all. Chernobyl has sent a message aground the world. The message has not been understood. The radioactivity escaping from near Kiev in Russia went through nuclear free zones with the same deadly impact and devastation that it went though non-nuclear free zones-right across Western Europe into the Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom. There can be no isolation. We must play our part both in overcoming misunderstandings and suspicions in good diplomacy and in sensible defence to ensure globally that there never is such a war. We must play our part in regard to the Western alliance and the ANZUS Treaty. Of course, the Australian Democrats and Senator Vallentine are totally opposed to any kind of alliance. They are totally opposed to the ANZUS Treaty, the Western alliance and any kind of association. Senator Sanders —Totally opposed to nuclear war-as you should be, but you encourage it by your remarks. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let me say this: The demagogues of this world try to say, simply by mouthing a plea for peace, that they are the peacekeepers. That is nonsense. I could read out the history of the 1930s, when people like Senator Sanders, as demagogues, mouthed words which caused the disarmament of the United Kingdom and Western Europe, leaving them vulnerable to the nazi attack. The true peacekeepers of this world are the people who take the deterrent steps to stop war. Let us not believe that the Democrats or Senator Sanders have any monopoly on peace. That is the ugliest thing I know. No demagogue can be more ugly than the one who says: `I have a monopoly on peace; you are all warmongers'. The real defenders of peace are those who are willing to prevent war, and that is what we are doing by way of the Western alliance and the ANZUS Treaty. Not only is there a world commitment; there is a commitment on the regional scene. There is a need for us to be good neighbours. I remind the Senate that although we would not know it from the defence statement-indeed, the Dibb report makes no provision for it-we have a number of commitments. Under the ANZUS Treaty, we are part of the Western alliance. Under the five power defence arrangements we participate in the air defence of Malaysia and Singapore. Without any formal commitment, we are heavily involved in Papua New Guinea. We have defence co-operation agreements with the states of the Association of South East Asian Nations and with some South Pacific states. We have a longstanding commitment to Thailand under the South East Asian Defence Treaty, which has never been revoked. We have an obligation under the United Nations Charter to provide forces if the Security Council so requests. I challenge the Senate to look at either the Government's defence policy or the Dibb report and show where any of those commitments are provided for. In fact, the Dibb report states emphatically that these commitments should not place any demands on defence; the first and major demand being for the continental defence of Australia. It is a policy of destruction and disaster for one to retreat from one's duty for peace on the world scene, for one to retreat from one's commitments on the regional scene, by saying: `We will prepare purely for a defence of our continent and we will prepare on the basis of defence by denial'-a defence by denial which limits one's ability to deter the opponent. Senator Vallentine makes the grave mistake of believing that if one has a deterrent, one is an aggravator. The fact is that if Western Europe in the late 1930s had had a sufficient deterrent, there would have been no nazi commitment to war, and 40 million would not have been killed. Fundamentally, we need that deterrent. The whole of this policy statement-which reflects the Dibb report-ignores any overt need for us to take part in ANZUS. It talks about ANZUS, but it does not give any overt commitment. It ignores our regional commitments. It simply mouths a series of concepts which are, in themselves, propaganda. For example, as Senator MacGibbon so ably stated, it pretends that the high commitment to capital works and equipment at the moment is an invention of the present Government. Senator MacGibbon made it abundantly clear that the capital works and equipment for which the Government is paying today reflect very largely, if not almost solely, the orders that were placed by a previous Liberal government. I refer to fundamental items such as the FA18 and the big decisions that were made in that regard. Let the Labor Party rejoice in the mistakes it has made, such as in regard to the Leopard tanks. Senator MacGibbon —What about the FFGs? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —And the FFGs-the frigates. Let the Government rejoice that it committed this country to spend billions of dollars on frigates which could not take a helicopter on the stern in rough weather because it would bounce off and be destroyed. The frigate could not house in hangars on its stern Sea King type active sonar helicopters, which are vital for our anti-submarine warfare defence-the kind of helicopter that was envisaged would be acquired. These are the kinds of defence decisions that were made. If the Government wants to take some solace in thinking that it has a defence system that it can be proud of at the moment, it should look at the Hansard record of committee hearings, which show that the Opposition asked: `Tell us about the operational deployment force in the Lavarack Barracks in Townsville. Tell us what we could do if we had an emergency on the shores around Australia'. Honourable senators should bear in mind that the whole thrust of the Dibb report and this statement is that we should have a defence force which can react with immediacy to any attack on our perimeter. We were solemnly told by the brigadiers that if such a thing happened, within seven days they could get an Army company to react. A company comprises about 150 soldiers, give or take 10 or so, about 100-odd soldiers in the front line and support troops. So if we had a complaisant and quiescent enemy who would wait for seven days, we could put a company into action. This is the basis of what is called a vigorous and active defence system. It is nonsensical, After a fortnight they thought they could get a battalion into the area. Of course, if there were raids on our continental shores, there would need to be immediacy of reaction. The Government's policy is based on pretence. If one wants to test whether the Government has a good defence policy, one has only to look at the failure in regard to retentions within the forces. The fact is that in recent years the number of voluntary retirements in the defence forces reflect the low morale that exists. Each of the forces has shed numbers very badly. There can be no more vivid impression of how the defence system is seen by the people of Australia than to look at the Army Reserve. Numbers in the Army Reserve has been at the 30,000 mark. Numbers in the Reserve-which has formed the basis of the defence system in previous wars-have fallen away. Despite a multi-million dollar advertising program, which showed a Prime Minister smiling benignly while sitting in a helicopter, what has happened? Senator MacGibbon —The resignations increased. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Instead of our recruiting more voluntary servicemen, recruitment declined. Why has this happened? If one wants to test whether this is a good defence policy, who better is there to ask than members of the defence forces? There is no one better to go to than the officers, the servicemen and women, and ask them: `Is it worth while to stay in the Service? Is it a Service that, in terms of its equipment can do its job? Is it one that looks after you?'. We should ask any ex-serviceman about the two per cent reduction in his pension. We should ask him whether he feels happy about this. After all, as far as I can remember-I hope I am not wrong-the only government in the history of the Federation that has ever cut pensions was the Scullin Labor Government in the early 1930s. We have a very interesting situation at this moment, a situation in which the morale both of the people inside and outside the forces is being attacked on all sides. One has only to read the Hansards of the Defence Estimates committee hearings or listen to the evidence given. Did anyone want a more bizarre situation than the cross-examination on, shall we say, the M113 armoured personnel carriers? These are 30, 40-year-old vehicles which are obsolete and which the Auditor-General has condemned outright as being dangerous, inefficient in terms of their weaponry and terribly dangerous to the servicemen who use them because they do not provide protection. What does this Government do? It abandons the Waler project that the previous Government set up to get new vehicles. I ask the Government a number of questions: What has happened to the upgrading that the Auditor-General said should be done? He spent a year looking at this matter. How long will it take the Government to decide what to do regarding the upgrading of these armoured personnel carriers? Do the Government say that it would take three weeks or three months? Not one little bit; the Government said in this chamber that it will take another three years. The Government has taken one year to think about it, it will take another three years to think about it and it told us that after that it may take another one or two years to carry out the repairs. So nobody had better want to use the armoured personnel carriers in the next 3, 4 or 5 years. We have the extraordinary situation of the world knowing that the Department of Defence has lost ammunition from its munitions factories. Evidence was given that although no explosives at all had been stolen a person was charged and was before the courts for stealing and having ammunition in his possession. This kind of muddled evidence is before us. The simple fact is this: This Government has put together a policy to appease the left wing of its Party. The Government knows that the ANZUS Treaty is correct; it knows that the installations on its shores are correct; it knows that it should be looking at regional commitments but it has to appease the Left which has the clout inside the Caucus of the Party. So the Government produces what it purports to be a benign strategic situation. Nothing will happen, so one does not need a defence system; one does not need to have anything overtly to support the ANZUS Treaty, the Western alliance or our region at all. All we need is some forces to look after the perimeter of Australia and only then will we be able to deter an opponent after that opponent has left his shores and is on his way to Australia. It is not a matter of deterring by the knowledge that an opponent had better not come here because his bases could be knocked out if he made an aggressive move, which is the logical situation. That is not what will happen at all. We have defence by denial, a situation which has basically emasculated the defence forces. However, it has done more than that. It has shown to the United States of America that we are unreliable allies, that we are basically people who are not willing to play our part. From day to day we hear nonsense talked by the Australian Democrats and the nuclear disarmament people about the installations on our shores, the ships in our harbour and Exmouth Gulf. Let me make it abundantly clear-it must be said 100 times-that the whole of the conference on disarmament in Geneva over many weeks of debate and discussion and many papers said that if one great peacekeeper is to be named in this world it is the surveillance satellite because it sees what is going on in other countries and it becomes the fundamental deterrent. Therefore, the surveillance satellite should be protected by both sides. The conference on disarmament is attempting to get a treaty to ban any attacks on or destruction of the satellite. Why? It is because it is the best peacekeeper there is and it must not be destroyed; it is the best way of stopping war. Basically, if one has to have a satellite one has to have Pine Gap and Nurrungar. It hurts when I say this because the whole of Senator Sanders's stance falls down before him when it is known that the 40 nations at the conference on disarmament say that the kinds of installations at Pine Gap and Nurrungar are the world's best peacekeepers. All of those nations are in some kind of conspiracy, according to him, and only he and his people know the truth. Let me simply say to him that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, said: `If we are to have that treaty we must protect Pine Gap and Nurrungar because they are the receiving stations for the satellite'. Of course that argument was accepted. The kind of destructive propaganda that is told to the young people of today is that we have something on our shores that is very dangerous. The fact is that 40 nations on both sides of the Iron Curtain say that the best way of eliminating danger from this world is to have peacekeeping satellites. Nations agree that deterrence is the key to keeping peace until we can get a non-nuclear defence system, whether it be the strategic defence initiative or otherwise, until we can get a system that will ban all nuclear missiles. Let me make it abundantly clear that the Liberal and National parties for which I work and support believe that we have to eliminate all nuclear missiles and conventional war from this world. They will work towards a system that will set up a non-nuclear defence system, whether it be the strategic defence initiative, Star Wars or something else. Those who knock the search for a non-nuclear defence system are doing great harm. If Star Wars is no good, if it is a failure, why has it been of such significance in Iceland? Let me make it perfectly clear-and everybody should understand this-that America has said that step by step it will keep no secrets to itself. It will make its information available to the Russians and to others so that no one can be one up on the other; so that we can get disarmament step by step, by putting aside nuclear weapons and taking in non-nuclear defence systems until there are no nuclear weapons. Senator Sanders —Do you believe that? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I believe, because this plan has been put before the American Congress and the people of the world, that step by step this is the way to peace. I do not believe that by mouthing peace and calling others warmongers one does other than create destructive mischief in this world and that is the only thing the Democrats do very well. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. Senator Vallentine in her speech said that I proposed a system of forward defence. I did not. I have no support at all for a system of forward defence and sometime, at a later date, I will explain and dispel Senator Vallentine's ignorance of what is a system of forward defence. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.09) —It really saddens me that a man of Senator Sir John Carrick's experience has failed to learn and grow with the times. I am sure he has a great grasp of history; I am sure he lived through a very horrible part of the world's history but he has not learned to project that to the modern day. Basically he is still fighting World War II with a World War II mentality and I think this is very unfortunate. Senator Sir John Carrick —I am stopping World War III. Senator SANDERS —As the honourable senator says, he is fighting World War III. His views will lead to World War III because basically what he wants is increased weaponry. He supports the Star Wars initiative. Of course, we all know that Star Wars, far from being non-nuclear, in fact uses nuclear weapons. It uses a nuclear laser to-- Senator Walters —I take a point of order. Senator Sanders deliberately misquoted Senator Sir John Carrick's interjection. Senator Sir John Carrick said that he was stopping World War III. Senator Sanders deliberately misquoted him, saying that he was fighting World War III. I think he ought to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —There is no point of order. Senator SANDERS —I do not think it is a point of order either; it is a delaying tactic. About all that a Tasmanian senator can do is delay. They very rarely-certainly this is true in the case of Liberal Party senators-contribute very much to discussions of the sort that are before that Senate at the moment. Senator Sir John Carrick's support of Star Wars or the strategic defence initiative will lead to the start of World War III. He is doing this by encouraging and, in fact, giving comfort to an American President who has been sold a bill of goods. Of course, both Senator Sir John Carrick and Ronald Reagan want to believe that SDI will somehow bring about peace. But, it cannot. SDI can never do so because basically it is a device which can only work if a first strike is launched before it needs to be used. In other words, Star Wars, if developed-scientists agree on this-will not be 100 per cent effective. The only way it can possibly work at all is if 90 per cent of the Soviet missiles are already destroyed in their silos before they can be launched. This is why SDI is not a peace keeper or peace bringer at all. In this discussion on defence I think it is important to define who is the enemy. Who is the enemy? On this side of the House, the enemy is obviously the Reds, the communists, this undefined but despised force which somehow is going to take over. Senator MacGibbon said that Vanuatu and, perhaps, the Philippines had this capability of going communist and somehow threatening us. That is utter rubbish. I do not think that anybody in this chamber can honestly say that Vanuatu is a threat to Australia. It can never be. What about Japan. In Senator Sir John Carrick's mind, Japan, of course, was a threat. I think we still have this feeling about the yellow peril. Is Japan a threat to us? ANZUS, after all, was framed to defend us from Japan. But Japan already has access to everything that it wants from Australia. In fact, we are keen to give it to them. The Liberal and National parties have been very keen to pay the Japanese in the form of massive subsidies to take away our resources, certainly in the form of woodchips and minerals. So the Japanese do not want to invade us. What about Russia? Is Russia physically going to invade us? Of course not. Russia simply has no capability nor no will to invade Australia. Certainly, Russia would like to take over the world's economic system. I am sure that it would be quite happy if everyone were communist in economic terms. However, Russia has no military designs on Australia. There is no way that that country could even launch an attack on Australia if it wished to do so. It has no capability of carrying out a war so far from its own borders. It is having a terrible time in Afghanistan and all it has to do in that part of the world is roll trucks across the border. I noted with some sadness the perversion of the nuclear winter argument by Senator Sir John Carrick who seemed to take some satisfaction in the fact that in a nuclear winter we would perish along with the rest of the world and that the Chernobyl disaster showed that radiation would not obey any nuclear free zone signs and would flow across nuclear free zones as if to belittle those zones and say that we should not have them at all. What a nonsense. I am sorry that Senator Sir John Carrick has chosen to leave the chamber. Oh, he is here, but he is not in his seat. I would like Senator Sir John Carrick to listen to what I am saying because I feel it is an unfortunate-- Senator Kilgariff —Madam Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to the state of the House. Until the honourable senator is a little more honest, I will keep on calling quorums. Senator SANDERS —Please do. I think the whole House should hear this. (Quorum formed) I urge honourable senators to stick around. After all, now that we have them in the chamber, why not stay and participate for a change rather than rushing off to their rabbit warrens. As I was saying, the expectation of a nuclear winter after a nuclear war should not be used as an excuse for building more nuclear missiles, for throwing up our hands and saying: `Well, we had better go along with whatever the United States wants because we are all going to die in a nuclear holocaust anyway'. In fact, scientifically that is not even true. Nuclear winter, while it will affect the northern hemisphere to a great extent, probably will not do much damage to Australia or any other countries this far south in the Southern hemisphere. I think it is really a sad commentary that the pro-nuclear forces in our community say that the nuclear winter is a reason for us to continue our harbouring of the United States nuclear powered and armed ships in our ports and the presence of the United States bases which make us a nuclear target. Why doubly compound this system? Without the presence of the bases, without the ships, we simply would not be a direct nuclear target. The nuclear umbrella is an absurdity. I had occasion to write to an organisation in the United States of America called the Centre for Defence Information. I asked specifically for two bits of information: Firstly, whether the USS Missouri would be nuclear armed; and secondly, what were the implications of the neither confirm nor deny policy for Australia. I am sure that the forces of the Right, new or old, would maintain that the Centre for Defence Information was made up of a bunch of Reds and communists and such. However, they actually are not. They are very high ranking officials and officers in the American military. The Centre for Defence Information is composed of Gene R. LaRocque, Rear-Admiral, USN (Ret), Director; Eugene J. Carroll, Jr, Rear-Admiral, USN, (Ret), Deputy Director; William T. Fairbourn, Major-General, USMC (Ret), Associate Director; Kermit D. Johnson, Major-General, USA (Ret), Associate Director; James A. Donovan, Colonel, USMC (Ret), Associate Director; and James T. Bush, Captain, USN (Ret), Associate Director. I received a reply from Captain James T. Bush who said: Dear Senator Sanders: In answer to your communication of 19 September 1986, it is virtually certain that the USS Missouri, like the other IOWA-class battleships, will be fitted out with nuclear-tipped Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles (TLAM/N). This conclusion is based on the following statement made by U.S. Navy Secretary John Lehman in testimony before the Defence Appropriations Sub-committee of the United States House of Representatives earlier this year. `Two years ago we began deploying Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads for theater nuclear deterrence. They are now operationally capable on attack submarines, cruisers, destroyers, and reactivated battleships.' Captain James T. Bush went on to say: It is possible, of course, that no nuclear missiles are currently on board the Missouri. However, the collective opinion of the retired naval officers at the Centre for Defence Information is that ships on extended deployments, such as the Missouri's current deployment, carry as close to a war-time load of weapons as possible in order to be prepared for contingency situations. Here is an admission by some very high ranking United States naval officers that in fact the Missouri was nuclear armed. The other question I asked was about the implications of the confirm nor deny policy and Captain Bush, kindly replied to this letter by writing: I have been asked by Senator Norman Sanders to comment on the consequences of Australia's acceptance of the United States' Navy's refusal to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on particular ships. Under the 1951 ANZUS treaty, Australia, the United States, and New Zealand have pledged to `act to meet the common dangers' resulting from `an armed attack in the Pacific Region on any of the Parties.' This treaty has been beneficial to all of its signatories and existed without challenge for over 30 years- in saying this James Bush indicates that he is a proponent of ANZUS; fair enough, that is his opinion- In 1986, however the US responding to the New Zealand government's earlier prohibition of nuclear-propelled and nuclear weapons-capable ships, said that it considered New Zealand to be in violation of the treaty and that therefore the US no longer felt any legal obligation under the treaty to New Zealand. It is my view that the US severely overreacted to New Zealand's action. New Zealand's decision not to accept the United States' Navy's policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular ships did not reduce the value of the ANZUS alliance in any way. It did not reduce the value of the ANZUS alliance in any way, said this naval captain. He continued: It need not have impaired the military efficiency or effectiveness of the alliance. And it was not a breach of New Zealand's obligations under the ANZUS treaty. The same would hold true if Australia adopted a similar policy. Though U.S.-Australian military ties are significant, most of them would not be affected by a ban on port visits by nuclear-propelled or nuclear weapons-capable ships. The U.S. has 741 active duty military personnel in Australia and numerous intelligence and military facilities. At Pine Gap facility near Alice Springs, the U.S. conducts a wide range of intelligence activities including receiving data from reconnaissance satellites at the Joint Defence Space Research Facility. At North West Cape, the U.S. maintains one of the U.S. Navy's six facilities for communicating with submerged submarines using very low-frequency transmissions. The U.S. also maintains nuclear and seismic test detection stations at various locations. None of these operations need be affected by an Australian decision not to accept the U.S. Navy's either confirm nor deny policy. The U.S. does use a port and airfield at Darwin. B-52 bombers conduct maritime surveillance from an airfield at Darwin. However, these aircraft can carry out this function without nuclear weapons on board. Nuclear-capable ships call at the port of Darwin. As a naval officer with 25 years experience in naval operations including service as Executive Officer of two submarines and commander of the USS Simon Bolivar, a nuclear powered submarine, I can say with confidence that port visits have nothing to do with training naval forces for combat operations at sea. Port visits are wonderful opportunities for rest, recreation, and personal adventure, but they don't contribute to military readiness. I would like to add that the U.S. Navy's neither confirm nor deny policy cannot be justified on the basis of denying information to the Soviet Union. The extensive publicly available information about the U.S. Navy's nuclear arsenal plus Soviet intelligence capabilities means that if anyone knows which U.S. ships are likely carrying nuclear weapons, it is the Soviets. Australia, like New Zealand, is more than entitled to exercise its right to make its nation a nuclear-free zone if it wishes. This is particularly the case when this right can be respected without detriment to the military readiness or national security of any of the parties to the ANZUS treaty. The letter is ended: `Respectfully, James T. Bush', who is a US Navy retired captain. I wonder how the Opposition would reply to this. Senator Coleman —You will never know; most of them have left. Senator SANDERS —There are none of them left. They would probably call the man a rank communist. In fact he is a patriot. He simply does not want a nuclear war and he understands that nuclear weapons are unusable to him as a military man. Clearly this neither confirm nor deny policy is designed to keep Australians in the dark, not the Russians, and it is a convenient way for the Government to suppress debate on whether nuclear weapons should be entering our ports at all. I think it is time for the Government to come clean and to state that these ships are carrying nuclear weapons, which we all know, and to stop the charade. The neither confirm nor deny policy is now dead and buried. I think Rear-Admiral Martin dug the grave for that policy when the fleet came into Sydney and he said that of course they are nuclear armed but that the weapons are not dangerous. It is time we accepted that fact that they are armed. It is time we accepted the fact that their nuclear arms do make us nuclear targets. The presence of the US bases make us nuclear targets. We must not follow the road which has been outlined by the Opposition which basically will lead to another war. If we keep preparing for a war by increasing armaments for a war, we will have a war. The only way to peace is through disarmament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.25) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Government has tabled this discussion paper on this very important subject which has been of concern to the Opposition for a number of years. This matter was taken up by the Joint Select Committee into the Family Law Act 1975, which the Opposition established. That Committee recommended a collection agency for maintenance because it was quite apparent, during the deliberations of that Committee some years ago, that there was not an adequate means of enforcing the payment of maintenance by non-custodial parents. Indeed all sorts of schemes were being entered into whereby non-custodial parents were able to maximise the contribution of the taxpayer towards the financial problems that arise from a breakup of a marriage. Towards the end of the Fraser Government, which was in office when that report was made, both the Department of Social Security and the Attorney-General's Department were working on schemes to implement the recommendation of that Committee. When this Government came into office it virtually ignored this problem for some time. The Attorney-General's Department had an inquiry into the question of a maintenance agency being established, and reported on it in 1984, nearly two years ago. But in fact the Government did nothing about that until the end of last year, when it set up a ministerial committee, which has now come forward with this proposal contained in this discussion paper. The paper makes the very clear statement that it is the Government's firm belief that all children have a basic right to be supported by both their parents to the best of their ability. The Opposition fully supports that principle. We are certainly very interested in the scheme that is outlined here for deductions at source through the taxation system of schedule of maintenance which people would pay according to their income. However, the Government has not firmly decided to adopt that principle but it has decided to ask for comment on a number of problems. These are problems that, as I have said, have been identified by the Opposition, namely the inadequacy of the level of maintenance, the problems in the Family Law Act which require courts to take into account the availability of pensions to the custodial parent as against obligations which should be met by the non-custodial parent and several other deficiencies in that Act. The Opposition sought, in the debate on the Family Law Act in 1983, to remove the provision of the Act which requires courts to take into account the availability of social security payments to custodial parents, and at that time that amendment was in fact opposed by the Government. Towards the end of last year, on behalf of the Opposition, I introduced further amendments to the Family Law Act to give effect to a number of problems which the Government has at long last identified in this debate. Although that Bill was not fully debated in the Senate, Senator Evans, on behalf of the Government, rejected some of its provisions, including the removal of this provision, which this discussion paper now identifies, along with other mat- ters in the Family Law Act, as a very serious problem. These matters were the subject of proposed Opposition amendments to that Bill. Certainly, we are pleased to find that the Government has finally been converted to the principle that it espouses in this paper, a principle which has been firm policy of the Opposition for some time and to which we have sought to give effect by steps taken in this chamber to amend the Family Law Act to, as we could not do in opposition, establish a maintenance collection agency or system. The Government has certainly gone one step further in proposing this maintenance collection system. It is an interesting proposal and one to which the Opposition will certainly give close attention. I hope that the community will respond and comment on this paper. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.31) —I think that the Government deserves some congratulations for bringing forward a discussion paper on a matter which is of considerable concern to a large number of people in Australia. The paper, is, in fact, a reflection not only of national concern about the welfare of children but also, as it acknowledges, a reflection of international concern about the welfare of children following the breakdown of marriages. New Zealand and a number of States in the United States, including Wisconsin, have in past years had a look at the problems that have developed as marriages break down, particularly with regard to the care, maintenance and welfare of children. It is appropriate that this discussion paper on child maintenance be entitled `Child Support'. It is worth while for us to remember that our primary concern about the breakdown of a marriage from which there have been children is that those children are adequately supported. We must not lose sight of that fact that the care and support of children, and the parents' primary responsibility for that, is a major issue facing us. From time to time we get rather excited about other issues resulting from the breakdown of marriage, including relationships between the parents, the problems with access, the damage that one parent can do to another by bad- mouthing the non-custodial parent, and so on. In doing that, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that the most relevant factor is the welfare and well-being of the children of that union. That, of course, is what we have to focus on and it is what this discussion paper focuses on. That is what the Government has asked interested people in the community to focus on when they respond to this paper. It is unfortunate that the Government has given a fairly limited time for community comment. It is an issue that has excited considerable concern-not always, I might add, concern that is directed at the welfare of the children-in the community in recent times. There is no doubt that we have to look at things such as the level of maintenance that is paid for each child when a marriage breaks down, and the regularity of payment of the maintenance to those children, and a number of other questions have to be resolved with regard to whose responsibility it is to maintain those children, what other things get in the way of it, and how those issues can be resolved. We are faced with the fact that some quarter of a million people in this country are sole parents and they have the care of almost half a million children. Those people who are dependent on pensions and benefits as their only source of income are essentially poverty-stricken. It is a very large group in a population the size of Australia's. It is something that we ought not to be particularly proud of. Those people, as sole parents, often have, as this paper acknowledges, limited access to employment, because job opportunities are decreasing and there are in particular limited opportunities for part time employment which many women-and it is mostly women who are sole parents-need if they have several children, some of whom may be at school, some of whom may be at pre-school. There is also the compounding factor of limited access to child care. Those things need to be addressed before we can achieve any sort of equity as far as the welfare of children who are involved in a marriage breakdown is concerned. The main problem, as the paper outlines, is the irregularity, often the non-payment, of maintenance. Well over half of the families do not receive the maintenance payments to which they are entitled. There are limited ways of ensuring payment. This paper canvasses a variety of ways, from the New Zealand model to the Wisconsin model, and so on, in which these things can be corrected. The low level of maintenance payment per child is also a problem that needs to be looked at, and the frequency with which the maintenance payer gives priority to debt commitments other than maintenance payments. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.38) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I welcome the report `Looking Forward to Better Health' by the Better Health Commission. I note that this paper is the first of a series and I agree with the Chairman, Professor Derek Llewellyn-Jones, that funds made available on an annual basis in this exercise would be a contribution to an important and undoubtedly beneficial work. I draw attention to the definition of `health' as outlined in the paper from the World Health Organisation. The definition is that health is `a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being'. It is noted that this is often considered both general and idealistic, but nevertheless I suggest that it is a definition of health which is totally consistent with the sort of definition that the Australian Democrats see as important in the formulation of health policy. It is one which we carry through into other policy areas, given that we understand the importance of the whole social context, and that policies such as an environment policy, a social and community services policy, individual rights policies and others are all important in the general area of community health. Many important issues are raised in this report. For instance, one which bears considerable attention is the issue of the impact on health of advances in medical science. As the report says, dramatic scientific or technical advances may not significantly influence the health of the population at large in a positive way. We really need to bear that in mind. Perhaps we do not pay enough attention to that issue. Of particular interest are the groups outlined as being at additional risk within the whole context of community health. Just looking down the list we see Aboriginals, the disabled, immigrants, older people, young people and women. It seems that almost the only group that is not included is that of middle-aged Anglo-Saxon men. Possibly that is an omission. I draw the attention of the Senate to a report which was outlined in the National Times on Sunday headed `Making Macho makes Aussie Men Sick'. In that report it is stated that the pressure which men are under in their roles manifests itself in ill health. The report says that pressure on men to conform and making them less able to express or be honest about their feelings is a major problem affecting men's health and that men are less likely to notice or get treatment for symptoms of mental or physical illness because traditionally it is not masculine to show pain or appear to be weak. It is important that we bear in mind that these stresses exist. That underlines the point I made before that because we place people, both men and women, in specific roles in our society we place additional stresses on them. In this health context it is at a cost which has a dollar sign before it. Another report this weekend from Victoria, a report on shift workers, also bears consideration. It says that shift workers do not adapt and this has an impact on their health. These health issues must be addressed. They will cause us to look at issues such as work practices from the point of view not just of women but also of men. The stress on smoking issues in the report encourages me. My colleague, Senator Vigor, will have more to say on that matter. I am particularly concerned for young women, particularly in Victoria. Just this morning, a report from Victoria shows that there are increasing numbers of cancer deaths in Victoria and these are directly smoker related. That is very important and is a major aspect of the report. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.43) —As did the previous speaker, Senator Powell, I welcome the report from the Better Health Commission entitled `Looking Forward to Better Health'. As with many papers in this place, we have the opportunity to speak about this report before we have had the opportunity to consider it comprehensively. I would urge anybody with an interest in health to look seriously at this document because it covers a very significant range of issues of concern under the so-called health heading. It proposes ways in which co-ordination and proper consideration may lead to a different outcome over time for the health status of Australians. It is a somewhat nit-picking point but when looking in the document at the summary of the major findings I read: The Better Health Commission finds that there is an overwhelming community interest in better health and that, although the cost of ill health care is increasing rapidly, it is bringing with it little improvement in the health of Australians. Then on page 20 under the heading `Trends in Death Rates' the paragraph begins: The health of the Australian people has improved markedly during this century. I would like to ask the Better Health Commission how it weds those two comments. Either the health of Australians is improving or it is not. On page 1 it seems not to be but is costing more and on page 20 health is improving, or at least improving over this century. I have not delved into this document comprehensively enough to know over what time span any improvement in health is measured so that the commission can conclude currently that health is not improving. It is interesting to look at the statistics under `Death Rates'. In 1935 life expectancy at birth for males was 64 years and for females 69 years. By 1983 life expectancy had increased for males to 72 years and for females to 78 years. Another statistic of great importance if we are looking at the overall health of Australians is the infant mortality rate; that is, the number of deaths of children aged less than one year per thousand live births. In 1935 the infant mortality rate in Australia was 50 per thousand live births. By 1985 it had fallen to less than 10 per thousand live births. Again, by any criteria, that is a dramatic increase in the health status of this community. I mentioned during the Aboriginal women's task force women's business debate that the infant mortality rate of the Aboriginal community is vastly different from that of the non-Aboriginal community. It is fairly shocking to look at this again. The report documents a very much higher level of infant mortality amongst Aboriginal people than amongst non-Aboriginals. If our score is 10 per thousand live births, including a very much higher rate among Aboriginal people, our low figure actually masks a very high and unacceptable-one could even say disgraceful-level of infant mortality among Aboriginal people. I am not quite sure how the Better Health Commission looks to improve the health status when there is a remarkable increase in both the life expectancy of males and females and a dramatically falling infant mortality rate. Those two statistics are of considerable importance. One other point is that this document is very comprehensive. It looks at a number of areas of better health promotion where there needs to be a national policy or program. I hope that in the deliberations occupational health and safety, which is under the direction of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, is not ignored. The health of workers, even though they may live longer, needs to be part of a comprehensive overall consideration of the health status of people. It is also important because we have to move away from an emphasis of better health being a matter of individual responsibility only. It is very important that we also appreciate that the community, employers and the environment can contribute to ill health. I hope that that is part of the consideration of this document. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.48) —I support both Senator Crowley and Senator Powell in commending this report to the Senate. There are two areas on which I want to concentrate. I wish to bring to the notice of the Senate chapter 4.6, entitled `The Lack of Statistics', concerning the state of health of this nation. As the report says, the systematic collection of health statistics is essential if any attempt is to be made to describe and monitor the health experience of the population and its components sub-groups and to estimate the health care needs and to conduct any type of public health research. We do not have a comprehensive national vital statistics system. Statistics on births and deaths are collated at a State and Territory level and are not consolidated at a national level. Hospital statistics are even worse. They are handled at an individual hospital level. Australia comes out much worse than a number of corresponding countries at a similar level of development. It is rather difficult to determine that level of development these days as we seem to be going down very quickly. Again, as the report says, the adverse economic and social consequences of the dismal performance in these areas is underscored by the fact that hospital and nursing home costs account for over half the nation's expenditure on health services. That would be bad enough but in risk factor monitoring matters are even worse, especially when they are related to the care of the people in the out-patients sections and to looking at epidemiological surveys and at people who may simply be impaired by some health problem or be occupationally impaired. There has been no comprehensive national collection of data on smoking since 1977. Alcohol consumption figures are completely unavailable. Little information is given at State level on what people are eating. We will find it difficult to predict future illness patterns if we do not have any idea of the current habits of people and the way they organise their lives. For example, the risk factor that was mentioned in being a macho, middle-aged man in Australian society has not been statistically examined. Overseas, costs have been reduced by half in some areas, such as child accidents by simply monitoring those accidents, noting where accidents happen and instituting injury prevention programs. This brings me to smoking. On page 100 of the report there appears the heading: `Compiling an Australian data base: A prerequisite for policy formulation'. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard this section of the report. I have seen both the Government and Opposition about this matter. Leave granted. The section read as follows- COMPILING AN AUSTRALIAN DATA BASE: A PREREQUISITE FOR POLICY FORMULATION Devising a strategy tailored to Australian needs depends on having accurate Australian data, properly analysed. The gaps in health statistics in Australia are discussed elsewhere in this report. Unlike the United Kingdom, the United States and many other comparable countries, Australia has no systematic population-based statistics on tobacco consumption. There is a need for Australian data on tobacco and tobacco-related disease, and for data to be continuously monitored in the future. In their plan for `a national strategy on tobacco smoking control', outlined in June 1981, the National Health and Medical Research Council singled out the following areas for data collection: Epidemiology of tobacco-related diseases; Total per capita consumption of tobacco and cigarettes; Tar-weighted cigarette consumption; Past and present smoking habits of the population; Costs to the economy of tobacco smoking and related illness; Real costs of tobacco and cigarettes-related to wages and the Consumer Price Index; Smoking habits of certain target groups-for example, pregnant women; Smoking habits of exemplar groups-for example, doctors and teachers; Measurement of all media usage in relation to tobacco information, education and advertising, direct and indirect. The gathering of survey data on smoking attitudes and behaviour in adolescents is also vitally important because tobacco smoking is usually begun during the teenage years. Systematic data of this kind are not available in Australia. Senator VIGOR —This section of the report shows very clearly that we are not collecting the right type of facts about the dangers of smoking and that we are not trying to attack the factors which will increase smoking, particularly by young teenage girls, which seems to be a group particularly at risk. In the United States people are starting to move towards making tobacco smoking unacceptable and particularly towards stopping tobacco promotion. I will be moving an amendment to the income tax Bills-I hope I will get support from both sides of the House-to make tax deductions for tobacco promotion not allowable as a business expense. That is something Senator Bill Bradley has done in the United States. So people who like the United States will be able to follow that example. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(5.53) —I can see why this report by the Better Health Commission, entitled `Looking Forward to Better Health', has been welcomed by the social engineers in this chamber, in the other chamber and in Australia. Anybody who wants to tell us what we are to eat and drink, how we are to exercise and live and what our cerebro-spinal fluid rhubarb level ought to be, would welcome it. I notice that the Better Health Commission has already cost us about $4m. It is headed for bigger and better expenditure because its main recommendation in the report is that it perpetuate itself by the implementation of a high level national body to carry out all its goals, targets and recommendations. I do not know how far the Government wants to go with all this, but it is a nonsense. The Commission has found out that the road toll is bad, that some people are overweight, that our diet is important to us and that we had better not drink and drive. Nearly all the things we already know have been thoroughly researched. The Commission is blaming the media to a large extent for not publicising all this. Senator Lewis —What do they say about pot? Senator SHEIL —I think the Commission is against drugs generally and thinks they are bad. Senator Puplick —Other drugs. Senator SHEIL —Probably. The goals the Commission is calling for include a reduction in the proportion of adults with high blood pressure to less than five per cent of the population. That is ridiculous. Another goal is to reduce the mean fasting plasma cholesterol level in adults by 14.3 per cent. Another goal is to increase to 60 per cent the proportion of adults participating in activity to produce health and fitness. One thing that particularly amuses me is that the Commission wants to reduce the number of pool drownings of children under 12 years by 95 per cent- Senator Powell —Don't you agree with that? Senator SHEIL —Yes, I do. But the Commission wants to reduce the number of pool drownings of children under two years by only 90 per cent. How would the Commission work out the difference? Does one lot deserve saving more than the other? It sounds like something a typical Australian Democrat would be concerned about. Senator Sanders —We are concerned. Senator SHEIL —They sure are. They want to save only 90 per cent of children under two, but 95 per cent of children under twelve. The Democrats support that. They welcome it. The Commission wants to reduce by 50 per cent the number of hospital admissions of children for accidental poisonings. Do the Democrats support that? Do they not support 100 per cent, but only 50 per cent? The Better Health Commission leaves me cold. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The time for the consideration of Government Papers has expired. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I seek leave to move a motion relating to the post-Budget statement by the Minister for Defence. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the eightieth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances on its activities over the past 12 months. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The report I have just tabled is regarded by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances as one of considerable significance. Firstly, as the eightieth report of the Committee, it is evidence of the long tradition which has existed in this Senate of bipartisan scrutiny of delegated legislation. Secondly, as the fifth report tabled by the Committee in the past 12 months, it is evidence of the Committee's active response to the legislative complexities of modern government. Nowadays, governments make use of delegated legislation to achieve their aims, instead of resorting to residual bureaucratic discretions that might otherwise be undisclosed. This is the proper and preferable approach to take. Thirdly, as a detailed report which comments on a wide range of instruments, it is hoped that it may become a reference for policy advisers and legislative drafters. The Committee hopes that the report will indicate the pitfalls to avoid when they are preparing delegated legislation. I will refer briefly to two important aspects of the report. Firstly, during the year the Committee received a number of ministerial undertakings to amend delegated legislation in the interest of personal rights and liberties. Among these were the following undertakings: To restore a right to a jury trial for property offences in the Australian Capital Territory regardless of the value involved; to remove provisions empowering magistrates and justices of the peace to issue search warrants by telephone, as the Committee considers that superior court judges alone should exercise this remarkable power unless Parliament gives it to others; to amend an ordinance dealing with acquired immune deficiency syndrome to ensure that a statutory defence granted to hospitals did not provide a defence to a claim arising out of a negligent blood transfusion; to amend regulations which allowed one department to give to other departments unrestricted access to confidential information about individuals collected by that department; and in respect of certain regulations to provide criteria for decision-making, to provide that reasons for decisions and notices of appeal rights be given and to provide that decisions of officials be subject to rights of appeal. The Committee pays tribute to the Ministers who gave these undertakings and, indeed, to all Ministers who have given undertakings. The Committee has found that all the Ministers with whom it deals recognises the Committee's bipartisan role, its neutrality on questions of policy and its ability to effectively identify provisions which intrude on civil rights and liberties. Secondly, in its report the Committee draws attention to a number of serious flaws in the Acts Interpretation Act and the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. These are the Acts in which the Senate's powers of disallowance are found. Chapter 2 of the report describes the flaws. The first flaw concerns those provisions which permit delegated legislation to prejudice the rights or entitlements of individuals retrospectively. The second flaw concerns the anomaly that, although each House of Parliament has a power of partial disallowance over Australian Capital Territory ordinances, there is no similar power of partial disallowance over federal regulations and other instruments. This is a serious defect in the power of disallowance. From time to time sets of regulations are made which incorporate in one single regulation several detailed provisions. Sometimes these contain a new schedule substituted by a single regulation. Sometimes a single regulation contains many detailed sub-regulations. Part only of these provisions may infringe the Committee's principles. Indeed, a single clause only may be the sole objectionable part of the provisions. In these cases, the lack of a power to disallow part only of an instrument is an unacceptable flaw in the disallowance procedure. The Senate has to assess the merit of removing a number of good provisions in order to overcome a single bad provision. This flaw should be remedied as a matter of priority. The third flaw concerns the drafting of the 1982 amendments to the Acts. These amendments make it unnecessary to table delegated legislation to give it validity. It is legal for delegated legislation, which included delegated legislation infringing human rights, to be made to operate for 15 sitting days without being tabled. On the sixteenth sitting day it becomes void but it is effective till then. Further, it can be remade and a cycle established. This is a serious flaw because delegated legislation is made not only by Ministers, whom we can confidently expect not to take advantage of this gap in the law, but also by numerous statutory authorities and bodies over whom a Minister may have little effective control. Tabling is the procedural device by which the Parliament and the Senate, as a constituent of that Parliament, is alerted to the exercise of delegated power. The present tabling provisions ought to be strengthened as a matter of priority. The fourth flaw concerns the laws repealed by delegated legislation and the question of their revival if that legislation is later disallowed. The later disallowance does not lead to automatic revival of the laws repealed. This can result in an unfortunate situation in which there is a gap in the law where one ought not exist. This problem is particularly acute in relation to certain Australian Capital Territory laws. A fifth flaw concerns the ability of those who make delegated legislation to do so in a way which infringes the Committee's principles, followed a short time later by its repeal and then its remaking in a similar form. Were this to happen the Senate, under the present rules, would be denied the opportunity to render ineffective the objectionable provisions. The thrust of the legislation repealed can be remade in a form retaining that thrust. I know that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has already begun to examine some of these questions and I urge him and the Senate to look closely at chapter 2 of the Committee's report. In conclusion, I would like to pay the following tributes. I will be brief about this. Firstly, Senator Missen was a past Chairman of the Committee and Chairman of the Commonwealth Delegated Legislation Committee. As Chairman, he carried on and strengthened a tradition of diligence and fearlessness in protecting rights when dealing with Ministers and the bureaucracy. Hopefully we carry on our work in that tradition. Secondly, the Committee would not be as effective as it is without the contribution made to its work by Senator Lewis, the Deputy Chairman, who, when himself Chairman, was undeterred by ministerial might if he thought rights and liberties were placed in jeopardy by delegated legislation. Thirdly, the Committee owes a great debt to its legal adviser, Professor Douglas Whalan of the Australian National University. Without his expert weekly legal reports we would have a much more difficult time in coming to grips with close to 1,000 instruments of delegated legislation per year. Finally, the Committee thanks its small staff. I mention in particular its outstanding Secretary, Peter O'Keefe; and Margaret Murphy, John Carter, Jan Wood and Helen Reid. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.08) —I would like to speak about this report at a later stage but I would just like to say that it is a pleasure to serve on the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances under the chairmanship of Senator Cooney, who has adopted very much the high standards which he mentioned in relation to Senator Missen and previous chairmen of this Committee. Other than saying that at this stage, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 Loan Bill 1986 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for the implementation of the reciprocal agreement on social security signed with Italy on 23 April this year. The Bill will also effect minor amendments to the Social Security Act 1947 to ensure that the agreement meshes with the Act. The reciprocal agreement which has been concluded with Italy is the first in a network of new cost-sharing agreements which the Government is seeking to conclude with each of Australia's migrant source countries. The background to this initiative was outlined in the statement of the Minister for Social Security to the House of Representatives on reciprocal social security agreements on 8 May 1985. A copy of that statement has been distributed to honourable senators with this speech. Reciprocal social security agreements are formal arrangements which countries enter into to ensure that people who move between them receive social security pensions and benefits on a fair and equitable basis. They are treaties binding countries under international law and are put into effect under the domestic law of the countries concerned. Like the agreement with Italy, Australia's future agreements will be based on principles which are in line with international practice. Those principles are: Shared responsibility. Each party to the Agreement will contribute to a person's total social security coverage. Equality of treatment. The residents and citizens of both countries will be given equal access to each other's social security laws. Totalisation. Periods of residence and/or contributions in both countries will be added together to give people the minimum period of residence or contributions required to qualify for a pension from either or both countries. Pro-rata basis. The total amount of pension to be paid by each country to people residing in the other will be based either on the length of a person's residence or contributions. (The Social Security Proportional Portability of Pensions Act 1986 enabled this principle to be adopted for Australia.) The reciprocal agreement between Australia and Italy specifically addresses the social security rights of the following groups of people: Those who have resided in Australia and cannot claim Australian pension entitlement because they now reside in Italy; Those who ceased contributions to the Italian social security scheme when they migrated to Australia and who now cannot claim Italian pension entitlement; and Those from Italy who are now in Australia and do not have access to Australian pensions because they have not resided here long enough. The Government will be pressing to get the agreement with Italy ratified as soon as possible in order that the benefits it gives can flow to the intended beneficiaries. In developing the agreement with Italy, the Government has formulated a four stage process to be followed for future agreements. This process involves: Detailed exchanges of information, including written material and face-to-face meetings, to enable both country's officials to understand each other's social security systems; Consultations with communities in Australia likely to be affected by an agreement; Negotiation of the terms of an agreement, taking into account community views; and Ratification, legislation and implementation. In keeping with the undertaking of the Minister for Social Security to the ethnic communities in Australia, relevant communities will be consulted before the commencement of formal negotiations. Exchanges of information between Australia and the country in question need to take place before consultations can be conducted with the community concerned so that the implications and the viability of an agreement can be explored with the community and its concerns taken into account prior to the commencement of formal negotiations. As with the community consultations in 1985, the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia will be invited to assist with further consultations. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act 1979 and the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Act 1985. The legislation will commence on a day to be proclaimed. Its effect will be to abolish the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (AIMA). I remind honourable senators of the communique of the National Economic Summit conference in April 1983 which stated ``. . . the future well-being of this country depends upon the acceptance of the cultural, social and economic implications of a multicultural Australia'' That aspiration is an important objective of the Hawke Labor Government and our hopes were expressed during the debate last year about the proper role of AIMA. We believe that enormous improvements were made to AIMA over the ensuing year but not sufficient to avoid a further re-evaluation. The review of migrant and multicultural programs and services (Romampas), under the chairmanship of Dr James Jupp, which has recently reported, has convinced us of the need for a range of approaches that will more effectively ensure multicultural principles are accepted. In dealing with diversity, we must use diverse approaches to achieve acceptance of the values and benefits of our developing identity built on multiculturalism. Government must take direct responsibility for achieving objectives and we believe we are now embarking on an improved strategy for that purpose. Part of our strategy involves the setting up of an office of multiculturalism. The Government appreciates the contribution made by the council and staff of the institute to the cause of multiculturalism in our community. However, in our view the continuing life of AIMA is no longer the most effective means of achieving our objectives. The institute will therefore be wound-down and abolished before the end of this year at a saving of $1m during 1986-87 and $2m in a full year. This Bill protects the Commonwealth's interests in that process. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Debate resumed from 10 October, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Sanders had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after `That', insert: `this Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Animal Welfare for report by the first day of sitting in 1987, and that the Committee give particular attention to whether- (a) the Bill would weaken the supervision of animal exports, such as by the delegation of powers by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, resulting in decisions to export being made by persons who are neither qualified nor informed to assess properly whether an export is in the best interests of the animal or human communities; (b) the removal of the requirement for applications for permits to be gazetted would undermine basic democratic principles by denying the public any meaningful participation in permit decisions; (c) at a time when our native fauna and flora is under ever-increasing threat, strong legislative steps should be taken to close loopholes in existing laws, rather than creating even greater opportunities for those who wish to over-exploit our native species; and (d) there ought to be stronger supervision of the export of animals covered by the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species'. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(6.13) —Much has been made of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill in regard to our obligations under the Convention in Trade in Endangered Species. It is worth while noting some of the responsibilities of the convention which are spelt out in Article VI. It states: An export permit shall contain the information specified in the model set forth in Appendix IV and may only be used for export within a period of six months from the date it was granted. It goes on to say: A separate permit or certificate shall be required for each consignment of specimens. But in this Bill we find that the amendments will now allow for multiple export permits lasting a full year, which is clearly not in the spirit of the convention. Also, it does not provide for gazettal of intention to export or for rights of review by the tribunal of 12 month export permits. This is against the intention of the Convention in Trade in Endangered Species. The amendments will allow any designated authority to send as many animals overseas as it wishes without fear of public accountability. Evidence before the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare has shown that 90 per cent of exports go out unchecked, that fur and fauna identification squads have been disbanded and that container ships are rarely if ever searched. Federal and State police who are supposed to enforce the Wildlife Protection Act have no training whatever in identification. It is abundantly obvious that the kangaroo skin trade is unregulated. In what way will these amendments prevent these abuses? Of course they will not prevent these abuses. Is the Bill designed to ensure that the only bar between the free trade of our fauna and flora is a paper control of such lightweight nature that it virtually serves no control at all? Proposed section 76A, clause 33, allows the designated authority, the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, to delegate his or her powers upon ministerial approval to any officer or employee of the service. Presumably this could result in decisions to export being made by persons who are neither sufficiently qualified nor informed properly to assess whether an export is in the best interests of the animal or human communities. Does this mean that the cleaning woman at the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service can make the decision? I have a fear of bureaucracies. I fear giving them too much discretion. This flows probably from my own common sense and also from my viewing of the television program Yes Minister. I feel that it is a very dangerous precedent to allow the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service to delegate its powers in an undefined manner. Clause 19 proposes to amend section 52 with the result that applications for permits need no longer be gazetted. Eliminating this requirement undermines the democratic principals by denying the public any meaningful participation in permit decisions. How is the public to know that the permits are even coming up? The public must be alerted to the present drive to violate the entire Australian environment. In the daily Press we find a number of articles showing that the New Right, the H. R. Nicholls Society-the hypocritical rip-off Nicholls Society-is now turning its attention to gaining open slather on all the protected lands in Australia. Some 15 mines are planned for stage 3 of Kakadu National Park. In today's Hobart Mercury newspaper we find the General Manager of Utah Development Co. Ltd criticising conservationists, whom he called preservationists. The article reads: Developers and conservationists could work side by side but a dangerous element was trying to ``rap parts of the environment in a time cocoon'', the chairman of the environmental committee of the Australian Mining Industry Council, Mr Gavin McDonald, warned yesterday. Is there anything really wrong with that? Why should we not preserve some part of our environment? The timber industry is also gearing up. It has a $1.75m campaign to say basically that logging is good for the environment. This assertion has been taken to task by the Acting Director of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Institute of Biological Resources and Chief of the Division of Forest Research, Dr Joe Landsberg. He said: . . . We still lack sufficient knowledge of the ecology of the forests and how they respond to logging, to say confidently that Australia's forests, as currently harvested, are a renewable resource. The fact remains that the New Right has its sights set firmly on the protected lands of Australia. There is really nothing wrong with preserving patches of the environment for future generations. In fact, it is a laudable thing and we should be able to do this in our enlightenment in the late twentieth century. The United States National Parks Service has a charter which specifically states: The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations herein after specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of said parks, monuments and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. It is a very beneficial time capsule. The Americans actually took their parks so seriously that when Yellowstone Park was declared and run by a manager for a number of years it came to the attention of the United States Congress that hunters, loggers were defiling the park. This caused the United States Congress to call in the cavalry. The cavalry actually patrolled Yellowstone Park for some 30 years with sabres and rifles to make sure that Yellowstone National Park was not exploited. It would be wonderful if the Federal and State governments shared this attitude towards the preservation of our natural environment, but of course they do not. The attitude really is one of residuals. When an area is no longer of any economic use to the mining companies, the loggers, the hydroelectric commissions or the dam builders it is declared a national park. We obviously have the cart before the horse. This is the residuals approach and it has no place in our modern society. What should we be doing? I think we should go back to basic philosophy. We should go back to our own philosophy of Australia, and determine whether we have any idea of what we have in Australia. I believe that we do not. While we may love our country, we certainly do not respect our land. We have to develop a philosophy of protection of the land. The Japanese, perhaps, hold some hope. A Zen scholar, Sojo, in the fifth century wrote: Heaven and earth and I are of the same root, the ten thousand things and I are of one substance. I wish the Japanese would take a good look at this when they oversee their wood chipping plans for Australia. In our culture we have a Judaeo-Christian ethic. This has often been used by the developers as an excuse for exploitation of the environment. They say that the Bible says: `Go forth, multiply and subdue the earth'. Senator Sheil —`Go forth, be plentiful and replenish the earth', is the quote. Senator SANDERS —This is one interpretation. I have seen it written elsewhere. At any rate, I have heard the developers say that they have a biblical right, an injunction, to use the environment in any way that they see fit and that we, as conservationists, should not interfere with their activities. Therefore, I would respectfully propose an eleventh commandment for the Judaeo-Christians in our society. It would encompass the knowledge of the Aboriginal people, and the American Indians, and even some Zen Buddhism. My eleventh commandment would read: Respect the earth and the creatures and the plants upon it, so that thy days and thy children's days will be long and fruitful. Senator Gareth Evans —That is very touching. Senator SANDERS —Senator Evans says that it is touching. I think it is a necessity in this day and age. We are not in contact with our environment and we should be, because, after all, it is the environment which sustains us. Senator Gareth Evans —Much more defensible than the prohibition-- Senator SANDERS —I hope it is defensible. I hope the Minister embraces it with all of his considerable intellect, wit and charm. At a time when our native flora and fauna are under ever increasing threat, we must take strong legislative steps to close the loopholes in existing laws. Instead of closing the gaps, this Bill uses a bulldozer to create even bigger opportunities for those wishing to overexploit our native species and their habitat. This Bill must be sent to the animal welfare Committee in order to address the massive problems facing our wildlife. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(6.23) —We have just heard Senator Sanders give a long dissertation on the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1986. I would like to make a couple of comments on his contribution to the debate. I do not support his amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, proposing that the Bill be sent to the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare for report. I think that the Select Committee on Animal Welfare has quite enough on its plate without taking on a lot of extra work. It would most probably take it into a lot of different areas that I think would be better looked at by other persons. I do not think a lot would be achieved in the short term by the Committee taking it on. Senator Sanders referred to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald that reported a supposed illegal skin trade. I do not think that Senator Sanders should believe everything that he reads in newspapers, because sometimes they are not always absolutely correct. He is probably as well aware as I am that those allegations have come from one group that appeared before the Senate Committee and that other groups dispute those figures. At this stage I think neither side has been proved right and it is rather premature, if not inappropriate, to use such selective allegations. The Committee is still taking evidence on the subject. If we as a committee had all the answers and knew all the facts, as Senator Sanders implies, we would not have the need to continue taking evidence. I certainly have not made up my mind on the subject, and I hope that Senator Sanders has an open mind on the matter. The Bill is basically tidying up several administrative problems that became evident with the existing legislation. As previous speakers have said, the Bill allows us to meet international obligations for the protection and conservation of the world's wildlife. Perhaps more importantly, the Bill outlines controls for the export of Australian plants and animals and the import of live animals. It will simplify some unnecessary administrative procedures, clarify and tighten penalties and provide increased protection for those who provide information on people involved in animal or bird smuggling operations. Australia is a very rich country in the variety and wealth of beautiful, and in many cases unique, fauna and flora. For that reason, it is also a target for bird and animal dealers from overseas who have developed some extremely sophisticated networks to export illegally birds and animals for sale to clients overseas. To those living in Australia, especially farmers in many areas of Australia, the idea of someone paying $500 or $1,000 or even more for something as common as a galah or a sulphur-crested cockatoo is probably unbelievable. Yet a very lucrative illegal trade is being carried on in those two species and indeed in other less common but nevertheless plentiful varieties. Galahs and cockatoos are some of the biggest pests to farmers that this country has produced. Each year farmers develop a variety of methods to keep these birds away from their crops. As a farmer, I can assure the Senate that there is nothing quite so frustrating when sowing a crop as finding a hundred or a thousand birds behind the tractor grabbing the seed as it leaves the combine and falls into the seed bed. It is equally frustrating to see a crop that is ready for harvest decimated in minutes by the same birds. As I think has been mentioned here before in this debate, with sunflower crops particularly the economic loss is quite considerable. Yet the commercial export of birds such as the galahs and the cockatoos is forbidden. I am aware of the many arguments put forward to support this ban, but I cannot but wonder whether it is on only animal welfare grounds that we are doing the right thing. The number of smugglers caught by Customs each year and the number of dead birds found can be only a very small percentage of the total trade. Frankly, the thought of travelling overseas and sitting in a plane for several hours with a number of birds or, as one man from Darwin had, a number of live pythons strapped to me or in my luggage does not really appeal to me. That would probably give one, and some of the passengers sitting near one, if they knew about it, a bit of a squirmy feeling. The lucrative nature of the trade probably makes the risk and the discomfort worth while, although I doubt that the birds or the snakes so smuggled would think so. On animal welfare grounds alone, one would want to try to stop a trade which shoves birds and animals in airless little compartments and one in which they probably have a less than 50 per cent live delivery rate. A number of criticisms have been made to me over the control and regulations of wildlife exports. Much of the criticism has come from people involved in the flora and fauna trade. They are critical of many aspects of both import and export, and considerable concern has been expressed about the penalties meted out and the inconsistent and selective nature of the prosecutions. We must remember that we are not dealing with some backyard, petty operation catering for some fanatic who wants his own exotic birds or animals or whatever. In Australia we are dealing with a multimillion dollar business. Figures such as $40m a year have been cited. Of even more concern is the fact that there is considerable evidence to link the wildlife smuggling trade with the drug trade. It has been suggested that a plane load of exotic birds travelling from Australia to, say, Bangkok can be swapped for a return load of heroin. It is therefore a serious problem and one to which too little attention had been paid to date. In fact, there have been only five cases of wildlife smuggling brought to court since the existing Act came into force in 1984. That indicates, I believe, both the difficulty of the problem and the attitude to wildlife smuggling. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to order of the Senate I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Federal Police Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 289. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination 1986 No. 3. Defence Act-Determinations 1986 Nos 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63. Interstate Road Transport Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 291. Interstate Road Transport Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 292. Live-stock Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 288. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 287. Public Service Act-Determination 1986 No. 72. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1986- No. 57-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 4). No. 58-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 4). No. 59-Standard Time and Summer Time (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 60-Canberra Retail Markets (Amendment). No. 61-Milk Authority (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 62-Advisory Council. Regulations 1986- No. 22-(Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) Ordinance). No. 23-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). Social Security Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986 No. 293. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1151) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Does the Government support recommendation number 12 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking which suggests that the Australian Federal Police should develop itself as a detective investigational force, endeavouring to specialise in areas which are difficult for State Police forces. (2) Why does the Government support or not support the above recommendation. (3) Does the Government share Mr Justice Stewart's belief that the Australian Federal Police should provide assistance, not competition, to the State Police forces. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. The Government supports the development of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) as an effective federal investigative body, functioning as the Commonwealth's primary law enforcement agency. This approach formed the basis of the statement tabled in Parliament on 10 September 1985, which sets out the objectives and priorities of the AFP. (2) The long term role for the AFP is consistent with its top priorities, which are: investigations into drug trafficking, organised crime, and large scale fraud against Commonwealth revenue. (3) Yes. The AFP works in close co-operation with State Police Forces in a variety of ways including Joint Task Forces, joint co-operative investigations, intelligence sharing, and full participation in bodies such as the National Crime Authority and the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. (Question No. 1153) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: What action has been taken to improve co-operation between Federal and State Police forces and to ensure that the Australian Federal Police pass on all their intelligence material to the respective State bodies. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Most Australian Federal Police (AFP) intelligence, with the exception of telephone intercept material and that relating to sensitive, current investigations, is shared via computer with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (ABCI). This data base is, in turn, acces- sible by all State Bureaux of Criminal Intelligence and the National Crime Authority. In regard to telephone interception material, legislation precludes the sharing of acquired information unless it relates to what could be generally termed ``serious crime''. In such cases, the information is passed on under terms specified by the legislation to the appropriate police commissioner. All State Bureaux of Criminal Intelligence have direct computer access to the AFP's Master Names Index. Intelligence relating to current, sensitive investigations is restricted, even within the AFP, on a ``need to know'' basis. (Question No. 1166) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: Are the recruitment and training policies of the Australian Federal Police kept under review, in view of the Government's response to recommendations 37 and 39 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking; if so, what methods are employed for this purpose, and how frequently are they reviewed. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. In addition to the recent appointment of an experienced Director of Recruitment, current recruitment action includes market research into community perception of Federal Policing. The results of this research will be applied in the Australian Federal Police's (AFP) advertising campaign. Various changes in training policies and procedures were introduced during the period 1980-84. In 1985, recommendations of the Joint Management Review of the AFP were implemented in relation to the organisation and structure of the Training Department. Further, major reviews of Investigator Training and uniformed police training needs were completed in 1985 and 1986 respectively. Other continuing projects of the Training Department include the development of Careers Training programmes and Regional Training Schools. (Question No. 1171) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What further consideration has the Government given to recommendation 74 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning the creation of a combined Commonwealth-State Directorate of Public Prosecutions. (2) Will such a Directorate be established; if so, when. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Because of the very real administrative, jurisdictional and political difficulties inherent in the recommendation the Commonwealth has decided against its implementation. However, in addressing the problem of dealing with criminal activity which cuts across Federal and State areas of responsibility the Commonwealth and the States had been actively promoting closer co-operation between Federal and State prosecuting agencies whenever an investigation, whether by Federal or State police, discloses offences against both Federal and State laws. (2) No. (Question No. 1172) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What further consideration has been given by the Government to recommendations 79 and 80 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking dealing with systems for the monitoring of persons released on bail. (2) Has the A.C.T. incorporated provisions along the lines of those recommended by Mr Justice Stewart into its bail legislation; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Commonwealth supports action for review of these procedures. The New South Wales Government has advised that the upgrading of police computer facilities will enable closer supervision of persons released on bail in that State. All Commonwealth prosecution bodies have been directed to keep records to facilitate the proper monitoring of the operation of bail legislation. (2) Special bail legislation for the A.C.T. is in the course of preparation. The recommendations of Mr Justice Stewart are being taken into account in the preparation of that legislation. (Question No. 1174) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What further consideration has the Government given to recommendation 92 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning the use of tape and/or video recording at the scene of a drug raid. (2) Will the above matter be discussed during the Government's proposed review of the Criminal Investigation Bill. (3) Has the Government made efforts to implement fully recommendations 89 and 91 of Mr Justice Stewart's Report which propose greatly increased use of forensic chemists both at the scene of a drug seizure and for re-weighing and re-analysing narcotics prior to destruction. (4) Have additional forensic staff been appointed in response to the above proposals. (5) Have measures been taken by the Government to implement recommendation 90 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking concerning destruction of most of a quantity of a seized narcotics shortly after seizure. (6) Has the above matter been raised at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for further discussion. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) I am advised by the Attorney-General that Recommendation 92 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking is to be considered in the course of the review of the Criminal Investigation Bill 1981. (3) Recommendation 89 of Mr Justice Stewart's Report has been implemented by alternative arrangements. It is not practical that seized narcotics be re-analysed and re-weighed prior to destruction unless the destruction occurs immediately after re-analysis and re-weighing. To ensure continuity and the security intended by this recommendation, the Australian Federal Police, however, now employs measures calculated to provide a secure, accountable and practicable method of safeguarding narcotic seizures against theft or interference. Recommendation 91 of Mr Justice Stewart's Report is not to be implemented by the Government as it is not practicable that forensic chemists should have custody of drugs from the time of seizure to the time of destruction. Alternative arrangements have been made which allow for both the security of seizures and for investigative requirements, and these have been embodied in AFP General Orders and Instructions. (4) No. (5) Recommendation 90 of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking was considered at the Australian Police Ministers' Council on 16 May 1986. Council resolved that the pre-trial destruction of drugs is a matter for individual jurisdictions to address. In the federal sphere, following receipt of advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Government Solicitor, the Australian Federal Police policy on the destruction of drugs was promulgated and is contained in an amendment to AFP General Order No. 24. The amendment sets out the specific conditions which are to govern the destruction of seized narcotics including authorisation procedures and evidentiary requirements. Arrangements within the AFP for the audit of drug destruction systems provide an additional safeguard. (6) No. (Question No. 1192) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 June 1986: (1) When will the Department of Social Security introduce realistic benefits for disabled couples living independently in the community. (2) What is the future of the National Attendant Care Program. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) & (2) The honourable senator's attention is drawn to the Minister for Community Services' answer to an identical question (Question No. 1191. Hansard of 19 August 1986, page 90). Disabled persons may also qualify for income support payments paid by my Department. An invalid pension may be paid to a person who is permanently incapacitated for work to an extent of at least 85 per cent or permanently blind. The wife of an invalid pensioner may qualify for a wife's pension. In addition this Government has introduced a carer's pension to provide income support for a spouse or other close relative providing constant and long-term care to a severely disabled pensioner. Introduction of an attendant care scheme was foreshadowed in the 1986-87 Budget. Under this scheme services will be provided for severely disabled people of working age who live in nursing homes and who, with this assistance, choose to live in private accommodation. Details have been announced by the Minister for Community Services. (Question No. 1349) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: Does the Australian Government accept and agree with President Reagan's interpretation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; if so, does the Australian Government agree with United States proposals to extensively research, develop and test new ABM systems, especially the SDI program; if not, has the Australian Government made its views known to the United States Government. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government takes the view that mutual confidence in the continued integrity of the ABM Treaty is of great importance to the prospects of an agreement between the superpowers to radically reduce their nuclear arsenals. As the honourable Senator is aware the Government does not endorse the SDI or what it accepts to be a comparable program of research in the Soviet Union. Although the Government is not opposed to research into strategic defences as such it is seriously concerned that the present research programs will undermine confidence in the integrity of the ABM Treaty and thus seriously compound the difficulty of reaching agreement to reduce the offensive nuclear forces. In the absence of access to the full negotiating record the Government cannot make an independent judgment on the broader interpretation of what is permitted under the ABM Treaty, which the Reagan Administration accepted as valid in October 1985. However, the Government attaches importance to the fact that President Reagan has formally indicated that the SDI research program will be conducted in accordance with the traditional restrictive interpretation of the obligations under the ABM Treaty. The Government's views and concerns in respect of these matters have been clearly conveyed to the United States Government. (Question No. 22) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Is the Minister aware of the testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services in hearings on the Fiscal Year 1978 Defence Budget in March 1977 that ground terminals for the US Air Force's Satellite Communications System (AFSAT-COM) are to be installed at US Naval Communications Stations (NAVCOMSTA). Senator Gareth Evans —An answer to this question was included in Hansard of 16 April 1986 at page 1836. The Minister for Defence has now seen the testimony referred to in part (1) of the question, and the answer should therefore be amended to read: (1) Yes. (Question No. 1087) Senator Vigor asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) Does the Department of Resources and Energy maintain records of nuclear accidents and reports about them; if so, on how many occasions does it believe that accidents have occurred without a prompt public announcement being made. (2) Where have these incidents taken place. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) As Australia does not have a nuclear industry neither my Department nor the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) maintains comprehensive records of nuclear accidents. The only nuclear reactors in Australia are the small research reactors HIFAR and Moata at Lucas Heights, and the AAEC maintains close contact, including the exchange of operating information, with the operators of the same reactor types elsewhere in the world. Reports are held in respect of some nuclear accidents, notably the Report by the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the Accident at Three Mile Island, Harrisburg, USA; and the Report on the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and its Consequences by the USSR State Committee on the Utilisation of Atomic Energy. (Question No. 1281) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since 5 March 1983. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Senior Executive Level 2, Management Division, Central Office, reclassified as Senior Executive Level 1. (2) 27 July 1983, for $44,450 (plus $750 Expenses of Office Allowance) to $40,500 (plus $750 Expenses of Office Allowance).