Monday, 20 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Bill of Rights be abandoned. Australians' rights are already protected under our Judicial System. The Bill of Rights denies an accused person legal representation. The Human Rights Commission is the first stage of the judgement being placed upon the person accused. The Commission comprises of people of non-judicial qualifications. Your petitioners pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Abandon the Bill of Rights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 286 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose utterly the proposed Bill of Rights because this Bill will: Transfer to government powers not given nor intended to be given by the Constitution Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of this and any future Government Turn the Human Rights Commission into a political Star Chamber with unjustified power Abrogate Common Law and common liberty Set the State above the individual We the undersigned believe in democracy and freedom and earnestly entreat you to recognise that this Bill will undermine the fundamental basis of these. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject a Bill of Rights in this or any other form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 11 citizens). To the President and Honourable members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Senators Michael Baume (from 51 citizens) and Sibraa (from 461 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap terminates on 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should decide that- (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap not be extended beyond October 1986. (2) Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (3) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 80 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap can be terminated from 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) Notice be given by 19 October 1986 that the Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap be terminated by October 1987. (2) Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (3) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 1,093 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 Ryan (from 60 citizens) and Sibraa (from 230 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Upon evidence from within Australia and overseas, the introduction of Plant Variety Rights legislation would not be in Australia's best interests because: 1. Plant genetic resources should remain a public resource; 2. Australia's public plant breeding programmes could be undermined; 3. Such legislation may lead to a reduction in the genetic diversity of commercial varieties; 4. There is reason to fear that choices of seed and other plant propagation materials may be restricted due to the controls placed on their use; 5. Plant Varietal Rights legislation could lead to higher costs for the grower, the consumer, the plant-breeder and the taxpayer; 6. Plant Variety Rights will lead to a further increase in foreign control of Australia's plant genetic resources. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament ensure that it recognises the widespread public opposition to PVR and promote alternative means of royalty collection for plant breeders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable taxation deductions; that the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long- term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Senator Short (from 123 citizens). To the Honourable the President and 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 99 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that . . . 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launched their missiles in a ``first strike'' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 90 citizens). Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition from 251 citizens which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form and does not contain a prayer at the end thereof: Dear Sir, We, the undersigned, hereby reject the proposal for an Australian Bill of Rights, and agree the decision should be made by the Australian people by way of a referendum. Petitions received. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes that- (a) the week of 19-26 October 1986 is being recognised in more than 20 nations around the world, including Australia, as the Week of Prayer for World Peace; (b) this week of Prayer for World Peace introduces a year of prayer for world peace; and (c) at noon on every day of that week millions of people throughout the world will be praying for, or reflecting on, in their own personal or collective way, the peace through disarmament for our planet. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the fact that an encampment of protesters on the lawns opposite Parliament House today prevented the passage of 3 female senators and one male staff member across public land; and (b) condemns the Federal Government for not ensuring that male and female Australians may pass unhindered across public land. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) prepare and bring in a Bill for an Act for the purpose of ensuring, to the extent that it is within the power of the Commonwealth so to do, including but not limited to the corporations power in the Constitution, that all enterprises employing more than 25 full-time or full-time equivalent employees make at least one work station available to be worked on a roster basis by at least 4 young people between the ages of 16 and 22 on a permanent part-time basis, in accordance with the following outline: PROPOSED YOUTH EMPLOYMENT BILL 1986 OUTLINE OF PROVISIONS Purpose The purpose of the Bill is to ensure, to the extent that it is within the power of the Commonwealth to do so, including but not limited to the corporations power in the Constitution, that all enterprises (1) employing more then 25 full-time or full-time equivalent employees make at least 1 work station available to be worked on a roster basis by at least 4 young people between the ages of 16 and 22 on a permanent part-time basis. Experience has shown that young people demonstrate a great deal of responsibility in manning roster spots under this arrangement and welcome the permanent nature of the work. The scheme is designed to eliminate youth unemployment immediately and to give them experience in a ``real work'' situation, not a ``make work'' situation. Requirements 1. Number of work stations. Enterprises employing 25 full-time or full-time equivalent employees or more are to be required to make 1 work station available. Enterprises employing 200 full-time or full-time equivalent employees are to be required to make 2 work stations available. Enterprises employing in excess of 200 full-time or full-time equivalent employees are to be required to make 1 additional work station available for each additional 200 employees. 2. Time span. (a) From the commencement of the Bill, enterprises would be required to produce a Youth Employment Work Stations (Y.E.W.S.) Plan for their enterprise within a period of 9 months. It would be a requirement of the Bill that upon completion of the Plan enterprises do not employ additional labour, other than of a specified nature which cannot be supplied by their existing workforce, until they have met the requirements of making 1 work station available. The Bill would provide that nobody may be retrenched to make a work station available. (b) Whenever an enterprise reaches an employee threshold, that enterprise may not employ additional labour until they have met the requirement of making 1 work station available as a Y.E.W.S. 3. Specifications of the Y.E.W.S. Plan The Y.E.W.S. would (a) be worked on a roster basis, employing at least 4 young people on a permanent part-time basis; (b) be for persons aged between 16 and 22 years; (c) provide a minimum time of employment for any one person of 4 hours per week; (d) the rates of pay will be in accordance with the rates of pay for casual work at the appropriate age level as set down in the award for that particular operation; (e) the company will liaise with the Taxation Department to ensure that personal tax contributions are not deducted from the weekly pay unless it is clear that the total pay level for the year will exceed the non-deductible threshold; (f) if it is necessary for union fees to be paid by the casual worker, then the responsibility for paying these union fees will be the employer's, and not the employee's. (g) must be part of the ordinary, permanent function of the enterprise. It should be the equivalent of a normal, full-time, salaried position in the enterprise. (h) the enterprise provides whatever training is necessary for those persons to operate it at the equivalent level of skill of a normal full-time salaried position. Recruitment The Supervisor of the Y.E.W.S. should liaise directly with the nearest CYSS office. There should be no involvement of third parties such as personnel officers or junior managers on the one hand, or employment agencies on the other, unless the personnel officer or junior manager is the supervisor. Supervision Selection by the enterprise of the person within the enterprise who shall supervise the Y.E.W.S. must be on the basis of: (a) positive attitude and willingness to co-operate in the successful operation of the Y.E.W.S. (b) concern and interest in the problems associated with long-term unemployment of our youth; and (c) ability and preparedness to discuss and assist the youth employees with (i) the specific job, (ii) full integration into the work force, and (iii) associated problems which concern young people. Reduction in Tax Enterprise would be reimbursed by a tax rebate on their company tax on half the cost, including on-costs, of employing a worker at a Y.E.W.S. This is designed: (a) to offset the additional cost incurred by the enterprise for training, and the need to pay award casual rates; and (b) work stations are not to be made available above the prescribed quota because of training difficulties in doing so and tax cuts. Supervisory Board A tripartite Supervisory Board to be set up by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations (a) to ensure (i) the Y.E.W.S. are being created in accordance with the employee thresholds laid down by the Act, (ii) that the conditions for Y.E.W.S. are being met, and (iii) liaison with CYSS; (b) if satisfied that the requirements for a Y.E.W.S. have been met, to issue a certificate to that effect, a copy of which would direct the Commissioner of Taxation to allow the tax rebate as specified in the Bill; and (c) to cancel, withdraw or not issue a certificate if, in the Board's opinion, the conditions have not been met. (1.) Enterprises shall include but not be limited to companies, partnerships, private and incorporated businesses and any other form of public or private business which may be regulated under a Commonwealth head of power. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, seven sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Optometrists (Amendment) Ordinance 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 51 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, seven sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Apple and Pear (Conditions of Export) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 219 and made under the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, seven sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Credit Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Australian Capital Territory Regulations 1986 No. 17 as made under the Credit Ordinance 1985, as made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, seven sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Ordinance 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 55 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, seven sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Domestic Violence (Miscellaneous Amendment) Ordinance 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 53 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, seven sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Motor Omnibus Services (Amendment) Ordinance 1986, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 48 of 1986 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, seven sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Motor Omnibus Services Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Australian Capital Territory Regulations 1986 No. 13 made under the Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance 1955 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —In all these notices the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has written to Ministers about matters of concern to it under its principles of scrutiny. We are considering the legislation and we are hopeful of resolving all the issues. However, today is the last day on which notices can be given. We have given these notices to protect the Committee's freedom of action in case the Committee has difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory resolution of its concerns. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) while commending the development of the Jindalee Over The Horizon Radar System, which will enable the detection of shipping and aircraft movements off our northern coast and in the Indian Ocean; and (b) recognising that this facility does not have the capacity to specifically identify craft detected, calls upon the Federal Government to supplement this facility, particularly in the north of Australia, by the deployment of sufficient defence personnel which would be able in the event of the detection of an unidentified and/or hostile intruder, to seek out, identify and deal with such an intruder, as appropriate. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with extreme concern that 3 members of the Senate were, on 20 October 1986, physically obstructed from walking in an orderly manner across public land in front of Parliament House by women campers; (b) expresses its objection to one group of people seeking to appropriate an area of public land and apply sexist restrictions on the passage of members of the public, both male and female, across public land; and (c) notes with regret that the Ceremonial Welcome to the Prime Minister of India (Mr Gandhi) had to be restricted due to the obstruction and refusal to move of the campers. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns- (a) the Federal Government for allowing the protesters on the lawns in front of Parliament House to declare public land gender specific and refusing progress across that land to people not of their preferred sex; (b) the female protesters for man-handling a member of Senator Vanstone's staff in an effort to preclude his lawful passage across public land; and (c) the protesters for showing disrespect and contempt for a member of this chamber by defacing her clothing with indelible ink. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate pay tribute to the efforts of the women peace campers on the lawns outside Parliament House, whose efforts are focused on the importance of world security and whose right to express this viewpoint is recognised in a democratic society. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated and ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Future Administration of the Australian Capital Territory-Text of a statement by the Minister for Territories. 2. Department of Community Services-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 3. Repatriation Commission-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 215 of the Veteran's Entitlements Act 1986-Together with the Department of Veterans' Affairs-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 4. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of expenditure for September 1986. 5. Proposed amendments to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973-Text of a statement by the Minister for Defence. 6. Operation of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 for the period 1 July to 31 December 1985-First Report of the Judge Advocate General-Pursuant to section 196a of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Defence. 7. Cross Investments between the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and Elders IXL Limited-National Companies and Securities Commission Report. 8. Trade Practices Commission-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. 9. Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act and section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983. 10. Judiciary Act 1903-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to sub-section 50 (1) of the Judiciary Act 1903. 11. Parole Board of the Australian Capital Territory-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act and sub-section 27a (1) of the Australian Capital Territory Parole Ordinance 1976. 12. Australia-New Zealand Foundation-Annual Report 1985-86. 13. The Australian Bicentennial Authority-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to sub-section 25 (4) of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act 1980. 14. Guidelines for provision of video and audio entertainment and information services-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Communications. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, will be absent from the chamber for Question Time today. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Walsh should be directed to me. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. Has the Federal Government forced the New South Wales Government to divert funds from other areas to ensure that the English as a second language program is maintained at present levels in that State, despite the Budget decision to cut funds to ESL by about 50 per cent? Has the Minister seen statements by various people in New South Wales in the education sector, including the State Minister, Mr Cavalier, who said that the Hawke Government's manoeuvring is a `desperate way out of a desperate political situation'; Dr Paolo Totaro of the Ethnic Affairs Commission, who has described it as robbing Peter to dress Paul and as a technique of divisiveness; and Miss Jennie George, of the Teachers Federation, who has accused the Government of chicanery over this issue? Will teacher development in New South Wales be the only program to suffer in the Hawke Government's attempt to escape the political odium of the Budget decision or, as suggested by Mr Cavalier, will there have to be cuts in other areas, such as Aboriginal education? Finally I refer to the Minister's claim last week that agreements had been achieved with all States but New South Wales on maintaining English as a second language programs. I ask her to detail the agreements reached and the amounts involved in transfers from other programs in the other States. Senator RYAN —I am aware of the reports in the Sydney Morning Herald containing comments such as those outlined in Senator Chaney's question but, of course, I am not in any position to say whether those are accurate or inaccurate reports. What I can assure Senator Chaney and other honourable senators is that the content of most of them is quite wrong. The resources that our Government wishes to have allocated to ESL programs in New South Wales-$4.8m-do not come from any other agreed area of expenditure; they come from unallocated extra recurrent funding. New South Wales will receive from next year in the vicinity of $18.4m which is as yet unallocated. The reason that it is unallocated is that it is a part of the resource agreement funding which is a part of the four-year legislative funding plan. With regard to the States-I exclude New South Wales-Territories and non-government systems, that money is to be allocated to areas of national importance, as agreed between the Commonwealth and State governments. During the early course of our discussions about this matter, the New South Wales Government had sent in for agreement by us a number of proposals on which to use the extra recurrent resource money. All of those proposals had to do with professional development; that is, all of them were to fund programs which essentially allow teachers to withdraw from classroom teaching and attend professional development seminars and things of that nature. While our Government considers professional development to be an important area, in the present circumstances it does not consider it to be a matter of the greatest national priority nor of the greatest priority in New South Wales. We have said to the Government of New South Wales-I understand that there will be a formal agreement to this shortly; certainly there has been informal agreement already-that, of the $18.4m, $4.8m will be allocated to the ESL area and the rest of the resource money can be allocated to the professional development programs as set out in the New South Wales Government's letter to me. Any talk of disadvantaged groups or Aboriginal groups losing funds is absolute nonsense. There was no mention, for example, of any program to do with Aboriginal education in the propositions put forward by New South Wales in the first round of negotiations. Whether there has actually been any claim to that effect or whether that is just garbled reporting in the Sydney Morning Herald, I cannot say. But I can say-I have documentation from the Minister for Education in New South Wales, Mr Cavalier-that his original series of proposals all had to do with professional development for teachers in state schools. In the present climate it is more important that extra Commonwealth resources be allocated to the ESL area ahead of some of those professional development programs. There may be some argument with that proposition by the New South Wales Teachers Federation-I expect that there will be-since it is intent on placing professional development proposals higher than any other. But that is not our view. I believe it is not collectively the view of the New South Wales Government. The Premier of New South Wales, Mr Unsworth, made it perfectly clear publicly on a number of occasions that he considered the maintenance of ESL programs to be of the highest priority of his Government. We have found a way of doing that. When I say that we have found a way, I must say that that way of allocating the extra recurrent money has been available to the New South Wales Government from Budget night, and it was pointed out in documentation that I issued with the Budget Papers. But there is agreement now between the New South Wales Government and us that that is how the money will be allocated. I believe that agreement will be formalised in the next few hours. As to other States and other systems, similarly there have been discussions with them to the effect that they have the opportunity of allocating some of their extra recurrent funding to make up ESL shortfalls if there is any need to. There may not be a need to because of the flexibility that was available to the other States and systems in the use of their funds. Victoria and South Australia have already announced supplementary funding to make up shortfalls. As well as that, they have the flexibility provided for in the Commonwealth program. Resource agreements have not been concluded with the other States or with the non-government system, so I cannot give Senator Chaney details of those at this stage. But I will be happy to give Senator Chaney and the Senate details of resource agreements as they are concluded between the Commonwealth and our various partners. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister for Community Services aware of the recent criticism of the Department of Community Services by Dr Adam Graycar, the South Australian Commissioner for the Aging? I point out that Dr Graycar alleges that the Department's vigorous support for normalisation principles may lead to nursing home residents being made more miserable by having to do things they do not want to do. I ask the Minister: Are Dr Graycar's allegations correct? If not, would he care to inform the Senate of the true position? Senator GRIMES —I was in Adelaide yesterday and spoke to many people who heard Dr Graycar speak. If I may say so, Dr Graycar is as well known for writing speeches to seminars of that type with an eye for publicity as he is for adherence to the facts, and certainly in this case-a remark which is shared by people on both sides of this House. Dr Graycar's paper and his remarks are a very good example of someone setting up a straw man and then battering him down with a bulldozer. In fact, the last thing that the Commonwealth or the Department of Community Services wishes to do is to have people in nursing homes or in other institutions of that type slavishly adhering to routines and being made to do things that they do not want to do or would not normally do and, in particular, being made to do things which they are not fit to do, as is suggested in Dr Graycar's extraordinary paper. What the Government wants to do and what I think most people want to do is, within limits, to make life in nursing homes as homelike as possible. We are not capable of making life in nursing homes completely homelike because, by definition, people in nursing homes are supposed to need nursing care and attention practically 24 hours a day. But we believe that people in nursing homes should, where possible, be able to invite relatives in to see them when they like, to even eat with them when they like, and to visit them at times other than rigid visiting hours, which is the usual thing in some hospitals. We certainly want people in nursing homes to have the right to participate in activities if they choose to do so, but not to be forced to take part in activities in which they may not wish to participate. We certainly do not want people who are physically ill to be forced to take part in activities in nursing homes, or to be forced out of bed when they should not be out of bed. We want to provide sufficient nursing care in nursing homes so that people will not have to do that. The great value of the theory of normalisation, which was introduced some years ago but which is not a term used by me and not a term in general use by my Department, is that it at least enables us to have some measure of how we are going in enabling people to live their lives as normally as possible, or in a homelike atmosphere, in areas such as nursing homes. The intention is the absolute opposite to that suggested by Dr Graycar. I suggest that either Dr Graycar has set up the Department of Community Services as a straw man to knock it down, as I say, or his view on what normalisation is and is not is a peculiarly outdated one and certainly not the view of this Government or my Department. Senator TOWNLEY —Has the Minister for Education seen reports of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee's endorsement and praise of the Bond Corporation's proposed private university on the Gold Coast? Does the Minister welcome the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee's decision to embrace the establishment of Australia's first non-government university? Does she also welcome the Committee's appointment of Professor John Lovering as its representative on the Bond university's advisory council, where he will join distinguished and experienced educational administrators, such as the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of Griffith University, the Director of the Queensland Institute of Technology and the Director of the Brisbane College of Advanced Education? Does the Minister agree that the involvement of such leading administrators of government higher education institutions will ensure the successful establishment of the Bond university? What significance does the Minister see in the acceptance of positions on the advisory council by Queensland's four top educationists? Finally, does the Minister still maintain that the Bond university is a threat to higher education? Senator RYAN —I am well aware of the attitude of the Vice-Chancellors Committee to this matter because I had extensive discussions with the vice-chancellors last week. I think the description of their attitude as contained in Senator Townley's question is a far cry from what their attitude actually is. They were quite annoyed to find that their attitude had been described as warmly welcoming the proposal. They have explained to me that they share my concern that the standards and reputation of Australian universities should not be undermined by the proliferation of private institutions that operate at a sub-standard level. Because of an overwhelming concern with the standards of Australian universities generally, some individuals from some institutions have agreed to join an advisory council. I think those individuals were accurately named in Senator Townley's question. Their purpose is to provide advice with regard to standards. Beyond that I am not aware of any function that they have. From the beginning of this proposal and other similar proposals of which we have heard a bit over the last few months I have made clear two things: First of all, it is the policy of this Government not to provide any public funding for private institutions and, secondly, this Government is concerned to maintain and indeed enhance the reputation of Australian universities. Both of those objectives are shared by the Vice-Chancellors Committee. As I have said to other people who have asked me in more detail about the Bond proposal, I am unable to comment on it in detail because I have not seen it. Although there have now been discussions with Queensland institutions-there were not to begin with-the proposers of this idea have been loath to bring the proposal to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission or to me for further comment. I do not know why they are so coy about it, but coy they are. Until we see the proposal in more detail, all I can say is that our Government will not give public funds to private institutions, and our concern is that the standards and reputation of Australian universities not be undermined by any private institution. Senator McKIERNAN —Is the Minister for Education aware of a demonstration which took place in Perth last Thursday protesting at the Government's introduction of the new Austudy allowances for secondary students? Will the Minister comment on the effect of Austudy in secondary schools? Further, is she concerned at the claims that the Commonwealth is withdrawing support from students? Senator RYAN —Yes, I am aware of the demonstration and yes, indeed, I am concerned by claims that the Commonwealth is withdrawing support from students because in fact the opposite is true. For example, Commonwealth assistance for expenditure on the secondary level of Austudy in Western Australia will increase by over $1m next year; by the end of next year an additional 1,700 students will receive the benefit. So those statistics demonstrate that Western Australia as a State will get increased resources and have an increased number of students eligible for benefits. There has been a ground for concern in that, because we have moved to an age related scheme, that is, that from now on the secondary benefit will be paid to 16-year-olds regardless of their level of study rather than to students as they pass into year 11, those students who are still 15 when they enter year 11 will not immediately be eligible for Austudy. They will not be eligible until their sixteenth birthday. Of course, under the previous arrangement, they would have been eligible for the secondary assistance scheme. So we are aware that there is ground for concern for those 15-year-olds continuing into year 11 next year before their sixteenth birthday. I have had discussions about this with Mr Pearce, the Western Australian Minister for Education, and pointed out to him that, as Western Australia benefits overall to the tune of an extra $1m for secondary allowance payments and as a much larger number of students-as I have said, an increase of 1,700-will be eligible under the age related allowance than was the case previously, it is fair and reasonable that Western Australia offer additional support to its 15-year-olds. I am pleased to report that, as a result of the Western Australian Government's Budget, I can now inform the Senate that the Western Australian State assistance will be increased from 15-year-olds to cover all students in years 11 and 12. So there will now be State assistance for all 15-year-olds in Western Australia, even if they are in year 11. There will be Commonwealth assistance to all 16-year-olds-- Senator Teague —Of what amount? Senator RYAN —There will be Commonwealth assistance to all 16-year-olds of quite a substantial amount; so benefits will flow to low income families regardless of whether the student is 15 or 16. I also remind those honourable senators who were not here during the debate last week on Austudy that the families of those 15-year-olds who have gone into year 11 will get Commonwealth assistance. If they are pensioner families, they will get the child allowance of $17 a week plus the family allowance, which will mean an average of $24 a week. If they are low wage earning families, similarly the family will be eligible under the family assistance scheme to $17 a week plus the family allowance. So there will be an average of $24 per week Commonwealth assistance going to support the 15-year-old in year 11 who comes from a poor family. In Western Australia there will also be the State benefit. The Burke Government is to be congratulated for having extended its benefits to 15-year-olds going into years 11 and 12. Senator POWELL —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Does the Minister or his Department have any information on whether the United States of America is fishing illegally for tuna in Australian waters? If so, what is that information? Has the Government had discussions with the United States with a possible view to licensing United States tuna boats to fish in Australian waters? If such discussions have taken place, what moneys would the Government expect to get from these fishing licences? Finally, has any research been done by Australia to establish whether yellowfin and skipjack tuna swim together with dolphins in Australian and south-west Pacific waters, as they do in other waters? If no research has been done, are there any plans to undertake such a study? Senator BUTTON —As honourable senators will be aware, I am an expert on the habits of dolphins! Senator Powell was kind enough to give me some brief notice of this question. She first asked whether the Minister for Primary Industry had any information on whether the United States of America was fishing illegally for tuna in Australian waters. The answer which the Minister gives is that we are not aware of any illegal fishing by United States tuna boats. Coastal surveillance by the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy and civilian coastal surveillance have given no indication of any illegal fishing. Senator Powell then asked whether the Government has had discussions with the United States with a possible view to licensing United States tuna boats in Australian waters. The answer to that part of the question is yes, it has, in the context of a multilateral access treaty between the United States and the governments of 16 South Pacific countries, including Australia. We are one of the 16. But no commitments have been made by the Australian Government at this stage, and any commitments which may be made in the future are likely to be made in the context of a multilateral arrangement. Senator Powell also asked what moneys the Government would expect to get from fishing licence fees if fees were imposed pursuant to multilateral arrangements. I am unable to answer that part of the question. A major obstacle in the current multilateral negotiations has been the level of fee, which would be in the form of a lump sum to the Forum Fisheries Agency, which would then distribute it in a manner worked out by the 16 countries. Senator Powell will appreciate that it is probably a difficult exercise to get agreement among 16 countries on both the size and the distribution of a fee of that kind. Finally I was asked whether any research has been done on the matter of yellowfin and skipjack tuna swimming together with dolphins. The answer to that question is no, there has been no research in the Australian fishing zone because little purse-seining is done on skipjack and yellowfin tuna in Australia. Senator Aulich —Per se. Senator BUTTON —Yes, Senator, per se. United States tuna boats in the region report that dolphins do not swim with target fish as happens in the eastern Pacific. Forum Fisheries Agency supports this view. There are no plans for research at this stage. However, if American tuna boats are licensed, as is the case with all foreign fishing vessels in Australian waters, they will be required to report extensively and allow observation by Australian fisheries officers. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce seen a report in today's Australian on a Liberal Party of Australia fund raising fashion parade on the weekend? At the event, attended by Mr Howard, the wives of several members of parliament modelled French and Italian designer outfits, but no Australian designers were included in the parade. Does the Minister have the same lack of faith in Australian designers as Mr Howard has displayed? Senator BUTTON —At Question Time in the Senate, I suppose Liberal senators and members of parliament are within my ministerial responsibilities in a sense. I am not sure that that extends to their wives. But my attention was attracted to the article by a picture of Mr Howard, as the caption says, wolf-whistling his wife, which is an extraordinary picture for the Leader of the Opposition, I must say. I suppose one point can be made in the context of all this. The colleagues of honourable members opposite in the House of Representatives had a great time last week questioning the Prime Minister about the origin of his suits. Senator Crichton-Browne —And he didn't answer it, either. Senator BUTTON —I propose to give an answer about this fashion parade, Senator Crichton-Browne, as distinct from that. I guess a point can be made about the triviality of this debate, but I just make the point that, at a time when increasingly Australian designers are achieving international recognition, substantial interest in Australian designers has been shown from other countries and such interest should be shown in Australian designers in Australia. Senator Walters —In what country did Mick Young buy? Senator BUTTON —I was just trying to make a point of a different quality, I would have thought, from the quality of Senator Walters's interjection. Let me say that the textile industry in Australia has created an international interest in Australian made garments. This has been done in the United States through an export campaign, which was widely supported by Senator Archer, as I recall. Senator Archer was also an enthusiastic supporter of a fashion parade put on largely for the benefit of Government Ministers at the Australian Labor Party national conference in Hobart earlier this year, as I recall. Senator Archer —I am sorry; I was not there. Senator BUTTON —But your colleague Hodgman was there inciting people to riot, as I recall. The point I make is that all of us in this country, including perhaps the Liberal Party, need to realise that the textile and clothing industries in Australia can become much more competitive if they are restructured and Australians are encouraged to buy quality goods and move to the top end of the market much more than the industry has been encouraged to do in the past. It is important that this is recognised not only by all Australians but by politicians who are subject to criticism of one kind and another about these matters. I notice that the fashions were described by Mrs Howard as being very expensive. I assure her that that is as a result of devaluation and nothing else. Senator PARER —I refer the Minister for Education to her announcement of 26 August that a decision would be made on 29 September on the allocation of the additional 1,000 tertiary education places promised in the Budget. Has that decision been taken and, if so, can the Minister give the Senate the State by State and institution by institution split-up of the new places? Senator RYAN —Yes, Cabinet endorsed the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's advice last week and the details Senator Parer is seeking will be contained in the schedules attached to the States grants tertiary assistance legislation which will come into this place this week-I gather on Wednesday. Senator McINTOSH —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce seen Press reports on the improvements in the steel industry and on Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd's improved performance? How does BHP's efficiency compare with steel operations overseas and with its performance before the steel plan was established? Senator BUTTON —This is a fairly regular question that is asked in the Senate following quarterly reports from the Steel Industry Authority. Although I bore, irritate and infuriate Opposition members by continually referring to these things, I think that it is important that attention is drawn to successful aspects of Australian industry. There have been a number of articles over the weekend which report on the encouraging improvement of the Australian steel industry. The last quarterly report of the Steel Industry Authority shows raw steel production as being up 6 per cent over the previous quarter to 1.6 million tonnes for the quarter. An article on the Australian steel industry by Mr Andrew Main in the Sydney Morning Herald today suggests that BHP's steel division has become the most profitable major steel corporation in the world with the lowest global operating costs. There are a number of natural advantages which the Australian steel industry has enjoyed. One is relatively close access to coal for the steel industry's purposes. But the fact is that BHP earned $US350m in the last financial year from its steel operations; this was up 52 per cent on the previous year. West Germany's Thyssen Group was BHP's closest rival, earning $US250m in the same period. BHP's production costs are now lower than all the other major producers, including the United States, Canada, West Germany, Japan, Brazil and South Korea. In terms of improvement in industrial relations in the steel industry, only a week or two ago I drew attention to the enormous improvement in steel industry industrial relations with the significant drop in man hours lost as a result of industrial disputes. Senator Chaney —It is not so good this year, is it, because 1986 has hiccuped a bit. Senator BUTTON —There has been a slight hiccup in 1986, and that takes us back to a performance that is about one-seventh in terms of man hours lost of the performance under the coalition government. That is regrettable. I think people know the reason for that loss-it was largely the result of an electricians dispute in the steel industry. The other aspect which is very encouraging is the improvement in productivity in the industry. The average productivity has increased from about 180 to 190 tonnes per man to in excess of 300 tonnes per man in one plant and an average of about 290 tonnes. These things are important in improving the performance of Australian industry generally, particularly because of the downstream consequences in other industries. In response to Senator McIntosh's question, I can say that the steel plan is working and is generating wealth and manufacturing jobs for Australians. It is also generating great security in manufacturing jobs for those remaining in the steel industry and that is very encouraging to the Government, as it should be to all Australians. Senator REID —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Territories aware of the report of the case in the Australian Capital Territory Magistrates Court involving registration in the Australian Capital Territory of four motor vehicles which were allegedly part of a Queensland car theft racket? I ask whether he is aware of the criticism by the magistrate hearing the case of: . . . procedures of the ACT Motor Registry which allowed stolen cars to be registered. What changes to the law are to be implemented to prevent this from happening and when will the new procedures be adopted? Senator GIETZELT —I have some 27 particular items in the brief before me from the Minister for Territories, but unfortunately the issue that has been raised by Senator Reid is not included amongst them. I have no personal knowledge of the incident to which she has referred, but I will seek an early response from the Minister. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education in her capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Will she please inform the Senate of the result of last Friday's well attended and high level conference on legislative and award restrictions to women's employment? Senator RYAN —I am very pleased to inform the Senate that the conference, which was highly successful, formed one of the later parts of the package of legislative reforms introduced by this Government to ensure equality of opportunity for women in the work place. Following the Sex Discrimination Act and the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act and other measures taken in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, we have now reached one of the penultimate stages in completing the reform measures relating to women's employment in the steps initiated by the Federal Government to ensure that State awards remove any discriminatory provisions which prevent women from gaining employment for which they are qualified. As Senator Giles pointed out, the conference was extremely well attended. It was opened by the Prime Minister and attended by representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry and all States. Participating States addressed the July 1987 deadline for reform-that is, reform under the Sex Discrimination Act, which gives a two-year period for all State awards to be brought into line with the Act. I am pleased to note that the Queensland and Tasmanian governments attended, and they will also need to review their legislation as discriminatory legislation will not be allowed to continue. The ACTU and the CAI issued a joint communique agreeing to resolve all issues by the end of 1988, and the communique was supported by South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. The Business Council of Australia indicated that it saw no obstacle to even faster removal of discriminatory provisions. In particular, the ACTU and the CAI agreed to resolve discriminatory provisions in Federal industrial awards. The Office of the Status of Women and the Women's Bureau in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations have commissioned a survey of all discriminatory provisions. The ACTU and the CAI will develop model variations and encourage their implementation, the aim of which will be that no woman will be debarred from any job for which she is qualified. Some occupational health and safety areas in which there is currently discriminatory treatment have been referred to Worksafe Australia-the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission-for authoritative and comprehensive resolution. In addition to manual handling or weightlifting, on which Worksafe Australia will shortly release a discussion paper, the conference asked Worksafe Australia to develop a national standard on lead processing as a high priority and also a code of practice regarding shift work. In conclusion, the conference was highly successful. I would like to record the Government's appreciation of all the participants in that conference. I believe that by 1988 there will be no case in Australia where a woman is prevented by a discriminatory practice from undertaking a job for which she is otherwise qualified. Senator ALSTON —Has the attention of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce been drawn to the comments at the weekend of Victorian Senate candidate, Mr John Halfpenny, who described corporate raiders as parasites and blamed corporate greed and irresponsibility for exacerbating structural economic problems in Australia? Did the Minister note also that at the same gathering of Labor lawyer luminaries the Victorian Attorney-General, Mr Jim Kennan, called for reforms to minimise the level of takeover activity? Does the Minister agree that these fervent outbursts of anti-capitalist sentiment are a further body blow to rational economic debate in this country which will do nothing to get the Australian economy up off the canvas? Senator BUTTON —I did not see the reports of Mr Halfpenny's remarks about corporate raiders being parasites. However, I did meet a man who attended the conference of Labor lawyers-a Labor lawyer himself-who said to me that Mr Halfpenny had described Labor lawyers as parasites, or something like that, during the conference, which somewhat aggrieved my informant. I think Mr Halfpenny, in fairness, probably would extend his remarks to all members of the legal profession and, no doubt in an ebullient mood, would embrace Liberal senators, corporate raiders and everybody else in the description of parasites. But these sorts of things are said from time to time in order to give illustration to a particular point. The fact of the matter is that reforms to limit takeover activity have been processed already in some ways by this Government. Legislation has gone through the Senate in relation to partial takeovers at a time when takeover activity was much higher than it is at present. The effects of imputation in the taxation package which the Government has brought down will be to provide some restraint on wild and speculative takeovers. Those two things together are probably welcomed by most sections of the business community in constraining what have been somewhat ill-considered speculative takeovers at some time, particularly six to nine months ago. The level of corporate takeover activity of that kind has lessened in the past few months. Apart from that, I do not think that the Government has any wish to take the matter further at this stage, or indeed has any intention of doing so. Takeovers perform some very useful functions in terms of large corporations, particularly in providing stimulus and innovative ideas to management in one way or another. Some takeovers have been of very considerable success in terms of improved performance by major Australian companies. It is quite impossible to generalise about takeover activity, but the mechanism of takeovers has some beneficial effects as well as some detrimental ones. On balance, the sort of policy mix which the Government has adopted to date is likely to be the most sensible and practical one in the circumstances. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware that the Queensland Government has failed to respond adequately to the Federal Government's initiatives to help the north Queensland tin industry? Can the Minister detail the extent of the assistance his Department is offering tin producers and comment on the likely impact of the Queensland Government's meagre offering? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware that the Queensland tin industry is angry and frustrated at the meagre assistance of $221,000 offered to it by the Queensland Premier, and it said so in a letter to me and, indeed, publicly in a statement issued last week. The Queensland Premier announced in Townsville last week that his Government would waive lease rental payments owed by tin miners in north Queensland for 1986 at a total cost to the Government of $221,000. However, royalties remain payable, albeit deferred for one year. That is to be contrasted with the Commonwealth's contribution of $1m to the industry in the aftermath of the collapse of tin prices some months ago, of which I think $756,000 was directed towards the tin mining industry in Queensland. It is perfectly understandable under those circumstances that the tin mining industry, as represented on this occasion by the Queensland Chamber of Mines, through its Executive Director, Mr Pinnock, should be describing the Queensland contribution as a pittance and calling upon the Premier to honour his earlier promise to make fully matching funds of up to $1m available. The contempt shown by the Queensland Premier for the struggling tin miners of his State is all the more remarkable when one considers his own, by now notorious, description of the $145,000 loan put handily in the way of a National Party apparatchik as being a lousy amount. Those are the standards he brings to bear when it comes to his own political pay-outs. It is not an indication of the generosity he brings to bear when struggling sectors of the industry in his State come to him for assistance which he has earlier promised. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Mr President, my question is directed to you. I ask: Are you aware that yesterday afternoon a number of women from the tent township now located on the lawns opposite Parliament House demonstrated by lying in the middle of the road and, in so doing, caused the Australian Federal Police to close off the road to protect their safety? I might say that, from my observations, it was one of the rare occasions when the women were in more danger than the police. In so doing, the police denied traffic access to Parliament House, which, in turn, denied reasonable and proper access to the main entrance of Parliament House by members and senators. Mr President, will you seek to ensure that such premeditated, deliberate and unlawful acts by protesters do not interfere with the duties and responsibilities of members and senators in the future? The PRESIDENT —Not being in Canberra yesterday I am not aware of the incident alleged by Senator Crichton-Browne. However, now that he has drawn the matter to my attention I shall have appropriate inquiries made and discuss the matter with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Senator COATES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of recent criticisms of immigration officials at Australia House in London about the procedures for the issuing of visitor visas? Mindful of the effect of such problems on Australia's tourist image and our general administrative competence, is it true that people wishing to travel to Australia must wait in queues for between five and six hours in order to be interviewed to obtain a visa? While not suggesting that we should drop a requirement for visas, I ask: Can Australia House not have a less punishing procedure for the processing of visitors visas? Senator GRIMES —I am informed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that the matter, which has been subject to Press comment after Australian Associated Press reports a couple of days ago, arises because an Association of British Travel Agents conference is being held in Australia in the future. As a result, 3,000 to 3,500 delegates are expected and they are almost all coming from the United Kingdom. This almost equals the average monthly visitors visa figure issued in London throughout the year. This also occurs at a time when the number of visas issued is starting to peak because of the Christmas holiday period, et cetera. Because of this, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs engaged additional staff to facilitate visa issue in London, as it always does, but there have been some delays. I do not know whether there is any accuracy in the statement that people must wait in queues for between five and six hours-I will seek that information-but we do know that on one day last week the Department issued 540 visitors visas. Currently, however, there is a delay of about 15 working days to process postal applications. The Department is very concerned about this and is investigating further whether this delay is just a seasonal aberration or whether long term remedial action may have to be introduced. Certainly the situation is not very satisfactory if people have to wait for five or six hours. I suppose it is not really very satisfactory if people have to wait a long time for postal visas. As Senator Coates says, that is an administrative matter to be overcome, and it certainly does not mean that we should remove the requirement for visas, as was suggested in some of the criticism in the Press. The United Kingdom, France and other countries require visas from this country, as we do from them. We hope that the administrative matters will be able to be overcome once we have determined the full extent of the delay. When the situation returns to normal and there is not such an abnormal demand for visas, I would expect the matter to be overcome. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. The Government plans to amend the Foreign Takeovers Act to allow foreign companies to take out exploration leases without first seeking Government approval. The Government claims that this measure will not affect its power to enforce foreign investment regulations, as rights to mine any deposits found will need official sanction by the Government. At present the Government is engaged in a dispute with Peko-Wallsend Ltd over exploration in Kakadu National Park. The Government claims that Peko's-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is giving far too much information. It is Question Time. Senator SIDDONS —I will try to be brief, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —I suggest to the honourable senator that he ask a question. Senator SIDDONS —The Government claims that Peko's rights to explore do not give automatic right to mine. Peko, however, claims that the exploration right-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to come to his question; if he does not I will ask him to resume his seat. Senator SIDDONS —Thank you, Mr President. In view of this, how can the Government go ahead with the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill before this vital issue is resolved? Senator GARETH EVANS —Matters of foreign investment are essentially ones for the Treasurer, rather than this portfolio. I will see what comment the Treasurer might want to make in response to Senator Siddons's question. I can say quickly that I do not think there is any immediate connection between the points he is trying to make and the situation that has arisen in respect of the Peko leases in the existing stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park. The fact that those particular Peko leases may, on one construction, carry with them some right to mine, subject of course to environmental procedures being satisfied, export controls being granted and the leasehold areas being large enough to make a mine economically viable, is a result of the particular terms and conditions attached to those leases and not something that is true, as I understand it, of exploration licences generally. There is a very fundamental and categorical distinction usually between exploration licences, on the one hand, and mining or production licences or interests, on the other. Any new exploration licence issued by the Government anywhere around Australia where I am familiar with current practice would carry with it only the capacity to explore, not subsequently to mine. Subsequent mining would require a whole new application being made for a whole new class of interest. As I said, I will refer Senator Siddons's question to the Treasurer to see what else he might care to say by way of reply. Senator BLACK —Has the Minister for Education seen the recent Press reports that salaries to be paid to academics at the proposed Bond Corporation university in Queensland range from $150,000 per annum for its Vice-Chancellor to equivalent amounts for academics and administrators? As the Commonwealth will not be contributing to any of the cost of this private university, can the Minister inform the Senate to whom the costs of those high salaries will be passed? Is the Minister aware that this university will be charging full cost fees? Finally, is the Minister aware of the range of these fees, and if full fees are charged, what effect will this have on both the students and the standards of teaching? Senator RYAN —I think the matters raised in Senator Black's question really do come to the question of quality and standards in this proposed institution. I am aware that the Corporation has advertised or intends to advertise a supposed vice-chancellor's salary in the vicinity of $150,000. That is roughly double what is paid to vice-chancellors in our public institutions. I am also aware that some of the claims that have been made by spokespersons for the institution have been to the effect that the institution not only will be fully self-funding, but also will actually be profit-making. The only conclusion one can draw from these claims and the amounts that are being advertised to entice people to go and work in the institution is that the full fees will be very high indeed. If it is true that the institution will be profit-making, costs such as the cost of staff and the vice-chancellor will be borne by the students. The range of the cost of full cost courses currently offered by our public institutions is between $7,000 and $18,000 a year. That is in a situation where-- Senator Teague —You're guessing. Senator RYAN —I am not guessing. If Senator Teague would like to address himself to the information that is being put out by our public institutions in advertising their full cost courses-I will be happy to provide him with a list-he will find that the costs of full cost courses in public institutions range from about $7,000 to $18,000 or higher for expensive courses such as medicine or veterinary science. These are the costs that are being charged, for example, by the Adelaide University for full cost medical students. They are easily checked. They are the costs being charged by public institutions. If, however, a private institution is to cover costs, to offer its staff twice the salary that is being offered in public institutions, and is to make a profit, the cost of courses would escalate enormously. It may well be, as was suggested in the Bulletin magazine last week, that if the institution gets going it will not pay for itself-it certainly will not make a profit-and that it will be subsidised by the profits made by real estate prices in adjoining land owned by the same corporation. But the fact of the matter remains that if the institution is to charge the full cost for courses, if those courses are not to be mickey mouse and sub-standard, and if they are to provide profits and the capacity for the institution to pay double the salaries that are paid in public institutions, we would be looking at double the highest cost in a public university, which would be from $20,000 upwards. As to who would pay those costs and what the standards would be of the students who would be prepared to pay, I think those questions really need to be answered in the future. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and for Defence. I ask the Minister: Can he tell us the reason why Indonesia has notified that it will not send students to the Joint Services Staff College next year and also that it will not send personnel to the Royal Australian Naval College at Jervis Bay, the Australian Staff College at Queenscliff and the Royal Australian Air Force Staff College at Fairbairn? Does the Government have any policy-if so, what policy-to heal what is now a clear breach in our relationship with Indonesia? Senator GARETH EVANS —Aspects of the defence co-operation program with Indonesia have been the subject of some quite extensive discussions between the two countries in recent times. I am not aware of the precise circumstances which lie behind the matters to which Senator Lewis has referred. I will raise the question with the Minister for Defence and give the honourable senator an early reply. Senator FOREMAN —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware that only about half of Australian defence industry related expenditure is spent domestically? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether this situation is likely to change in the future and what, if any, actions the Government is taking to upgrade Australian industry involvement in meeting our defence needs? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of this matter to which Senator Foreman has drawn my attention. For a long time now there have been complaints from Australian industry about practices embraced by the Department of Defence and the Services relating to Australian procurement, and I think they have been the subject of legitimate criticism. The participation of Australian industry in defence projects is well below the potential of our industry to meet defence needs. In 1985-86 some 45 per cent of defence industry related expenditure was typically spent in Australia but, combined with required offset commitments and exports of defence equipment from Australia, the proportion of defence related expenditure typically spent domestically amounts to about 58 per cent. So of the $2.7 billion spent on industry related activities last financial year, just over half was spent in Australia. I understand that this proportion is likely to grow in future years. This is because of higher local content in defence purchases, such as the construction of the new submarines in Australia, the rundown of projects with high overseas contents and local developments to meet special Australian requirements. Also collaborative projects are expected to at least double current historically low export earnings. So overall we might anticipate significant growth in local defence related industry activity as a result of these factors. However the Government is concerned to ensure that this trend is accelerated so that Australian industry can be given maximum opportunity to participate in defence projects. Last week the Government, through the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, announced a strategy to encourage Australian defence industry development, and that includes a series of measures to assist Australian industry bid for defence work and develop and export defence products. The package is designed to ensure greater exploitation of the potential for local and overseas sales in the defence areas and it includes the provision of defence forward equipment plans to Australian industry, a review of industrial capability to supply defence products, defence assistance to exporters, defence offsets priority for exports of indigenous products and Austrade involvement in defence exports. Might I say, by way of observation, that that is not before time. It will help bring Australian industry into a situation experienced by many other countries with large defence budgets, and that will be beneficial to Australian industry and the economy as a whole. We can expect from that announcement local defence related activity to increase significantly each year, and a boost should be given particularly to export areas. I believe, as the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, that Australia has demonstrated itself to be competent, especially in systems and electronics, and current economic conditions favour the competitive export of defence products. We anticipate that Australian industry will take up the new opportunities which this package offers. Senator KILGARIFF —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment to her answer to a question I asked last Wednesday. She said that she would take on notice the part of the question which dealt with the consultation procedures involved in seeking World Heritage listing for stage 2 of Kakadu National Park. Is the Minister aware that the Northern Territory Government is sending a submission to all member countries of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation to attempt to prevent the listing of Kakadu stage 2 on the World Heritage List, as a direct result of the Federal Government's failure to comply with the agreement reached at the 1984 Council of Nature Conservation Ministers meeting; that is, that no World Heritage listing would be sought by the Commonwealth unilaterally and without consultation with the State or Territory concerned? Can the Minister now confirm that that agreement has been breached by the failure of the Commonwealth to consult with the Territory? Finally, will the Federal Government now give an undertaking that the Territory Government will be consulted before any further steps are taken in relation to the World Heritage listing of Kakadu stage 2? Senator RYAN —I acknowledge Senator Kilgariff's ongoing concern in the matter of consultation with the Northern Territory regarding our Government's intention to nominate stage 2 of Kakadu National Park for World Heritage listing. I do not have with me information of what consultations have taken place but I will make sure that I get those for Senator Kilgariff as soon as possible. Senator BUTTON —Last Friday Senator Collard asked me a question about the proclamation of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986. At that time I undertook to give an answer by the end of Question Time, if possible, but was unable to do so. I am advised that before the Act can be proclaimed and be operational, regulations need to be made to describe the national cultural heritage control list of categories of material for which export controls are to be provided. This requires the compilation of an extensive national cultural heritage control list, for example, of military valour medals, unique colonial furniture, scientific patents, et cetera, that form part of Australia's heritage, and a register of expert examiners. The Government is seeking the widest possible number of professionals who will be able to provide expert advice on those items that fall into the category of belonging to Australia's unique movable cultural property. Detailed discussions are continuing with all the States and Territories to arrive at a suitable time scale for proclamation of the Act. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 20 October, from Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to endorse the principle that some form of community work be required of those in receipt of unemployment benefit.' Yours sincerely, FRED CHANEY Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to endorse the principle that some form of community work be required of those in receipt of unemployment benefit. This motion is brought forward as a matter of urgency because it is just one example of indecision on the part of the Government on an issue which is of importance to the community. It is an issue which is getting perhaps less attention than some of the other issues which have more immediate impact. There has been a great deal of discussion in the Parliament and elsewhere about the state of the economy. There has been a great deal of discussion about the taxation system and the impact it is having on individual Australians. But there is little discussion on this matter which is of great public concern and interest. The issue is whether those receiving unemployment benefit should be required to render some service to the community in return for that benefit. This is a matter on which the Government did appear to be proffering some leadership. Hopeful remarks were made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his address to the nation in June this year. But those remarks have come to nothing. There has been a drawing back from the principles that he adopted at that time. One is reminded of all those areas in which there is a need for Government action but where the Government is not providing a lead. For a year or more we have been saying that the issue of work practices is important if we are to get back to being a productive country. We introduced that in our industrial relations policy in a formal sense in May of this year. It was pooh-poohed by the Government and we now have a follow the leader exercise by the Government in that it now talks about work practices but provides very little lead. Senator Button —Following which leader? Senator CHANEY —The lead of the Opposition. It is the same with respect to the need for more flexible wages. If Australia is to provide increased living standards for its people, it is quite clear that we have to have a more flexible approach in that area. The Japanese and others have demonstrated that. We find this Government very reluctantly coming to the party instead of providing a lead. In the area of Aboriginal land rights the Government has failed to show a lead despite the repeated entreaties of the Opposition. It was an issue on which the Government played politics, made promises and broke promises. In no way even to this point has the Government demonstrated clearly where it thinks it should go. Of course, at Question Time a few minutes ago, Senator Ryan, the Minister for Education, demonstrated her approach to the needs of tertiary education in Australia by damning the efforts that have been made by some individuals to expand the availability of tertiary education in this country by the provision of a private university. I do not know why the Minister should be concerned about whether the fees will be high, given that no one would be forced to go to that university. Presumably high fees will be paid only by those who think that the degrees being offered are worth it. On this issue, as on so many, we find a total lack of lead from the Government. It was a pleasant surprise to find that, when the Prime Minister gave his address to the nation in June of this year, he took a lead on a subject about which there has been a lot of public concern and interest. Let me quote what Mr Hawke had to say on 11 June this year. He said: . . . while society has a responsibility to the unemployed, this is a two-way process. The time has come, we believe, when this two-way responsibility will best be served by providing as far as possible the opportunity, particularly for the younger recipients of unemployment benefit, to undertake some community work in return for that benefit. He went on to say that it was his experience from the Priority One campaign that this was the overwhelming view of young Australians. That is a fact; it has been demonstrated by surveys. It is the view of the Opposition not only that this proposition is correct but also that in fact it is a proposition that has the overwhelming support of the young, the overwhelming support of the unemployed and the overwhelming support of the community. In interviews following that address to the nation, of course, the Prime Minister was asked to comment on whether this could be a matter of compulsion. He made it clear that the operation of the work test was such that, if work was being made available, indeed, people might have to choose between doing some form of community work and receiving the dole. The question that the Opposition would ask about that is: What is wrong with that? Why should not the availability of some sort of work for the community be a reason for not receiving unemployment benefit for doing nothing? After all, the unemployment benefit has always had a work test; it has always been the case that if work was available one had to take that work rather than the unemployment benefit. So we had a very promising lead by the Government in that second week of June. It took a matter of days for that lead to evaporate and for the Government to go back to shilly-shallying around, coming back to the point where it would accept only that some voluntary arrangements might be entered into and that it might be useful if those on unemployment benefit were given some opportunity to do something on a voluntary basis. But if they choose not to do it, nothing would be lost. That, in the view of the Opposition, is not a satisfactory situation. We believe that it is not good enough simply to leave this matter on the very lacklustre basis that the Government has now adopted of simply expanding voluntary community work. Given that the duration of unemployment in this country has risen sharply over the term of this Government-it has gone from an average of 32.6 weeks of unemployment in 1982 to 48.8 weeks now-and that the Government is predicting a continuance of high unemployment and given the concern of the community and the evidence which is available that, for many, a long period on the dole is utterly destructive of those people individually, it is clear that something ought to be done and that this Government's very soft approach is not appropriate in 1986. I would like to make it clear that the Opposition, in bringing this matter forward, understands that in dealing with the unemployed we are dealing with a very varied group. I suppose any member of parliament who keeps an electorate office would know that among the unemployed there are many people who are desperately concerned about being out of work and who spend a great deal of trouble and effort trying to bring themselves back into full time employment. Many dreadful experiences come before us as individuals of people who are being put in a very difficult personal situation by the unavailability of work. That is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is the sort of evidence which has been brought out in anecdotal form both by business people who approach us and by the media. Recent examples of that have appeared in the Weekend Australian, which reported on people in receipt of unemployment benefit at Airlie Beach in north Queensland. That is merely one example of the sort of thing which is frequently brought to the attention of members of parliament. More importantly, it is an example of the sort of thing which is well known to many people in Australia. Many individuals know that there are those other unemployed, those for whom the dole or unemployment benefit is seen as a reasonably acceptable alternative for a time. There is deep concern at the abuse of the social security system that occurs. The public response to the article in the Weekend Australian and to the 60 Minutes program which dealt with the attitudes of people who are receiving assistance in the United States as compared with people receiving assistance in Australia indicates the depth of public concern about whether our present social security system and the unemployment benefit system in particular, while being necessary for those many Australians who cannot find a job, is not structured in a way that is doing damage to many receiving that benefit. It is important in introducing this debate to stress the point that in regard to the issues which are raised in this motion, which requires no more than the endorsement of the principles that some form of community work be required of those in receipt of unemployment benefit, discussion should be calm and rational because one is dealing with a difficult and sensitive subject where there are a number of different objectives. What is quite clear is that in looking at whether or not some obligation should be put on people who receive unemployment benefit, different objectives need to be considered. There is the objective of the individual. The Opposition believes that a long period of unemployment is extremely destructive to the individual. We believe that society should be looking to provide the individual with a more dignified alternative than money for nothing. We believe that that is in the interests of the self-respect of the individual concerned as it is in the community interest. The second objective is that we think that, with the massive outlays of the Australian community for unemployment benefit, it would be desirable to have some return to society other than the maintenance of those individuals who are unemployed. We see the obtaining of some productive effort in return for that massive public expenditure as being a positive virtue. The third objective, which again is of concern to many Australians, is that we should have some better safeguard against abuse of that area of social security than the checks which can be carried out by the government departments involved. In common with the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who will be responding to the debate, for some time I was responsible for administering the unemployment benefit system. During the course of administering that benefit I came to the conclusion that administrative means alone would not be adequate to prevent the abuse of unemployment benefit. It appears to me that a system of inspectors, no matter how enthusiastic they may be, the system of simply having forms and questions asked by clerks, will never prevent those who wish to take advantage of the system from doing so. One of the great advantages of providing some community obligation in return for unemployment benefit is that it restricts the capacity of people to abuse the system rather than to use it. In putting forward this principle we cannot get a great deal of guidance from countries outside Australia. The American examples, which are often referred to in debate on this subject, tend to refer to what are called supporting parent beneficiaries in Australia. There does not appear to be any country that we can look to for a precedent in this area of activity. We can get some assistance from experience in the United States dealing with those welfare recipients who are the heads of single parent households, but personally I have not been able to find examples of widespread provision of work in lieu of unemployment benefit. That in part is due to the fact that Australia's unemployment arrangements are unusual. There is virtually unlimited access to unemployment benefit, subject only to the work test. It even includes those who have never been in the paid work force. Most countries operate on a system involving a form of social insurance with contributions paid by employers and employees, and there are limited periods of time during which employees or ex-employees are entitled to benefit. The issue of work for unemployment benefit therefore does not arise in the way it does in Australia. It is the Opposition's view-a view which seems to be widely supported within the Government-that the structure of assistance provided in Australia, which does not require people on unemployment benefit to give society anything in return for that benefit, is damaging and unhelpful. This is not a view that we have come to in the last few months. In 1982 it was a concern of the previous Liberal and National Party Government that we needed to operate our unemployment benefit system more effectively. We had a very high profile example of the Aboriginal communities of Australia who took it on themselves to make it clear to the Government that they were opposed to the receipt of what Aborigines call `sit down money'. At a time when criticism of Aborigines and Aboriginal communities is very common, it is perhaps worth pausing to remember that it was remote Aboriginal communities which expressed the strongest distaste about receiving unemployment benefit because they felt it was `sit down money'-money for doing nothing. They saw that as being very destructive of their communities. During the 1970s we developed the community development employment projects within Aboriginal communities. These have been expanded gradually over the years, and I think that in its last Budget, the Government expanded them considerably again. We welcome that as being the forerunner of an attitude which basically holds-that people will be better off if they perform some socially useful function in return for support from the people of Australia. We sought to widen that experiment in 1982 by introducing an experimental program in work in lieu of unemployment benefit. We called that the experimental community projects program, which involved inviting States and local government authorities to participate in a program which, at that time, was meant to be voluntary and to involve perhaps 1,000 people on an experimental basis. We undertook to review that after about 12 months of operation. It is a matter of regret to the Opposition that the incoming Government chose to discontinue that program before it had got off the ground and before we were able to learn from that experience. We have reached the point in 1986 where we face a long period of economic downturn. On the Government's own predictions, we face continued high unemployment and a situation in which the Government itself, particularly through the Prime Minister and his address to the nation, opened up the possibility that the unemployed would be asked for some responsibility in return for the support which society was giving them. The Opposition welcomed that very strongly, just as we welcome the fact that there has been some move on the part of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in its recent pronouncements on wages and related matters. In the last couple of weeks the trade union movement in Australia has endorsed a youth policy which is based on the premise that young people should not receive the dole unless they are engaged in work, training or education. When the trade union movement of this country moves in that direction, it is again a sign of the growing national agreement that we should alter a system which is not serving the unemployed well, particularly the young unemployed. The National Times on Sunday described this as: . . . an approach which is similar to the Federal Opposition's work-for-the-dole strategy and reflects growing public concern about the social and economic impact of paying the dole to teenagers with no strings attached. We have a situation in which the trade union movement itself is embracing some elements of the approach we have been putting forward. It is well known in this chamber that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has long been an exponent of that view. In an interview in Playboy magazine some years ago, in reference to youth support schemes, he said: I think there should be a standard allowance payable to everyone at 17 or 18. It doesn't matter whether you're a student or on the dole or whatever, you should have the same rate, and you should have to do something for the payment you get. You should be engaged in study or training of some kind, or work. I interpolate there that it is the Opposition's view that there certainly should be for those Australians-and young Australians particularly-who are not in study or training, some kind of work which they can do in return for the support which the community very properly offers them. In that same interview Senator Button was asked: What if you're out of work, like a lot of people are? Senator Button replied: In my view, if they want the allowance, they should work for it. That sort of positive view, which was reaffirmed in the Senate only a few days ago by Senator Button as his personal opinion, is the positive view which the Opposition is putting forward in this motion. We put it forward because we think it is important at this stage that there be common ground and agreement on that general principle so that the Government can proceed from here to do the necessary work to put a system in place. We do not pretend that putting that system in place will be easy-we believe that it will need a great deal of work-but we think that the Government is in a good position to proceed with the full support and affirmation of the Opposition. It is a matter of deep regret, and the premier reason why we have had to bring forward this motion, that the Government has been pushed off that principle, partly by the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, and the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party. We note that the very negative views which have been adopted by those Ministers bear a very strong resemblance to the rather negative view put forward in this place by one of the Australian Democrats, Senator Powell, in a question to Senator Grimes just a day or two ago. Our plea to the Senate is that we should avoid the sort of inflammatory approach taken by Senator Powell; indeed, that we should adopt the more considered approach taken by Senator Grimes in his response to that question. We should adopt the principle that there should be some social obligation on those receiving support from Australian taxpayers. That view has been put forward by the Opposition with great enthusiasm for a considerable time. We put it forward in 1982 on the basis of experimenting with it. We believed then that that was the appropriate approach. We now believe that, with the time that has passed, the growing length of unemployment, the continuing economic difficulties faced by this country and the continuous undermining of the social security system by those who abuse it, the time has come for us to be imposing some social obligations on those whom the community is very ready to assist when they are otherwise in need of support. I commend the motion. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.32) —Like Senator Chaney, I believe that this is an important subject and a subject which deserves serious debate. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that the nature of the debate should be an urgency motion, but I admit that the opportunities for this sort of debate in the Senate do not seem to be very frequent lately. It is important also that in the wording of this urgency motion Senator Chaney should have introduced an element of conscription by using the words `some form of community work be required of those in receipt of unemployment benefit'. As Senator Chaney has said, in the past a lot of the debate in this area has been fairly emotional. In fact, in the days when we were in opposition between 1975 and 1983 there was frequently a lot of emotional debate in this place about unemployment beneficiaries. I remember that the very first Press statement put out by the previous Government on getting to power in 1975 contained a pejorative description of the unemployed as dole bludgers. That attitude went on until 1983, with the exception of 1982, as Senator Chaney said, when at a very late stage a scheme was introduced by the previous Government to try to do something about a few people in this area. From 1975 to 1983 the unemployment benefit for those under the age of 18 years remained static-in fact, it was eroded by inflation for all those years. From memory, in 1978 the unemployment benefit for adult single unemployed people was no longer indexed. Those people were treated in that way by the previous Government, despite the fact that we were reaching a stage then when unemployment was rapidly increasing towards its famous climax in 1982 when approximately 250,000 people were added to the list of unemployment beneficiaries in this country. In all that time the Opposition's present enthusiasm for changing the system in a positive way, as Senator Chaney said, to enable positive effects on unemployment beneficiaries was not eminent at all. Senator Chaney, I know, like all Ministers for Social Security in this country, was concerned at the time about the unemployment benefit system-how to get it under some sort of control and how it should act as an incentive rather than a disincentive for people to work-but no positive actions were taken by the then Government in that area. Today we still have a fair amount of emotive argument about the unemployed and what they are doing. As Senator Chaney said, a lot of that argument is anecdotal. He pointed out the response that the Australian newspaper got to its articles about the alleged numbers of people at Airlie Beach. Only two sitting days ago I pointed out in this place, as had been pointed out previously, that the figures quoted by the Australian about Airlie Beach were false. The manager of the Commonwealth Employment Service office in Airlie Beach had previously pointed out that the figures quoted by the Australian were false and I pointed out that in Queensland the number of people on unemployment benefit, in particular the number of young people on unemployment benefit, in resort areas such as Airlie Beach is lower than in the rural and metropolitan areas. But we still have this anecdotal evidence given that excessively large numbers of people in those areas are on unemployment benefit. Senator Chaney also mentioned the 60 Minutes program. He at least had the decency to point out that the 60 Minutes program falsely represented the scheme in America as a scheme forcing unemployment beneficiaries to get work. In fact, the scheme largely refers to single parents. I point out a matter which has been missed by many people; that part of that scheme was the provision of free child care to enable people in that program to work. In this country the cost of that free child care would in some cases exceed the cost of the unemployment benefit and would add considerably to the administrative costs of the scheme which has been suggested by Mr Howard, Mr N. A. Brown and other members of the Opposition. They are factors which are carefully avoided in this country as so often, as in the past, the unemployed are blamed for their own plight. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in his address to the nation on the economic situation in June this year, stressed that it was important that we provide the opportunity for the unemployed to obtain work and, where necessary and possible, to obtain some community work. As a result, the community volunteer program, which was announced in the 1986-87 Budget, aims to provide another option for unemployed people to get work experience in the voluntary community service sector. This is in addition to the volunteer youth program which already exists. The new program, which will be based on firm principles, will cost initially about $3.3m. Those principles will be that participation in the program will be voluntary; the program will be open to all unemployed, but with young people as the principal target group; participants will retain their entitlement to youth unemployment benefit; participation will be part time, so that participants will have time to search for jobs in the general labour market; and work opportunities will not be in areas normally involving paid employment and will not substitute for paid employment. The maximum involvement of the community and business sectors, as well as all levels of government, will be sought. The differences between the Government and the Opposition in this area, as demonstrated by this scheme, are differences of sensitivity, practicality and common sense. What we want is a solution which works, is acceptable and does not divide society. The best solution to unemployment, it has become a cliche to say, is of course to provide sufficient employment in the economy so that people are in normal and satisfactory work. In the absence of that we have to have a scheme which treats those on unemployment benefit, or those otherwise on benefit, with sensitivity; a scheme which is practical in that it works, is not abused by employees or employers and is approached with common sense. It is pointless having a scheme and having young or old people who are on the unemployment benefit wandering around the country doing tasks which they see as useless, which the rest of the community sees as useless, and which breeds resentment both in young people and in the community. The proposition put forward so often by Mr Howard that young people and all those on the unemployment benefit should do compulsory work is simply not on, first of all, I suggest, in this situation of financial constraint and in the reduction in the size of the public sector, including the Public Service, which we are operating under at the moment and which seems to have support from both sides of the Parliament. As my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, has pointed out, we would need an army of public servants to administer a scheme such as this. I doubt whether the costs of that would even be made up by the amount of cheating on the system that Senator Chaney seems to think would be detected in that area. When we see that roughly in excess of 700,000 people are likely to participate in the scheme and many of those move on and off the unemployment benefit frequently, we are looking at an increase in staff, in the Commonwealth Employment Service alone, of in excess of 1,000. Although there are long term unemployed in this community, most unemployed people move in and out of the unemployment ranks fairly quickly. To insist on a system where all these people would be required to do the sort of work that Senator Chaney is apparently talking about would require an increase in the Public Service that would run contrary to what this Government is trying to do, but certainly contrary to anything that members of the Liberal Party and the National Party have been suggesting should happen in this country. They have no problem in walking around this country advocating that we should slash the numbers in the Public Service and slash public expenditure but they have no qualms in walking into this place when it suits them and talking about a massive increase in the number of public servants for their pet projects-projects which, as Senator Chaney has said, have some popular appeal. But that appeal depends on a lot of anecdotal evidence and it is not based on fact. Contrary to what many supporters of the scheme suggest-I am not saying that Senator Chaney is one of those; he certainly did not mention it today-this would not be a costless exercise. To mount a scheme in this country which would provide that all those on the unemployment benefit would be required to do some form of community work has been estimated, again by my colleague Mr Willis and others, as costing something like $700m in outlays on education and training associated with such a scheme. I would be delighted if we had a spare $700m to promote the welfare of education and the training needs of the unemployed or, indeed, of pensioner groups generally. Equally, I would be amazed if the Opposition ranks its priorities of expenditure on the unemployed as highly as this. I am sure that it does not. But members of the Opposition do not speak in one voice in this regard. As Senator Chaney complained about what he saw as the Government's lack of resolve I think, in passing, I would like to mention the Opposition's changes in direction of its resolve, depending on whom one listens to or of whom one takes any notice. For instance, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr N. A. Brown, wants to abolish benefits for the long term unemployed and introduce some form of compulsory work for them-the very people who need the benefit most, I would suggest. This would go along with the fact that, when members of the Opposition were in government before, they had no problem about slashing the unemployment benefit for young unemployed, even if they were long term, and for single unemployment beneficiaries if they were long term. The former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, recently called for the abolition of the unemployment benefit for 16- and 17-year-olds with cuts in employment schemes because apparently this would assist people by sharpening their resolve, I suppose, to go out and seek employment. Various people on the other side, such as Mr Donald Cameron in another place, frequently advocate that we should not be paying the unemployment benefit to young people. In taking this attitude I think members of the-- Senator Chaney —That is not what the ACTU said, though. Senator GRIMES —I will come to the Australian Council of Trade Unions in a minute. The honourable senator knows what the ACTU is saying. It is not saying what Mr Donald Cameron said, that is for sure. I have no argument with what the ACTU is saying, as Senator Chaney knows. I think we really must look at how we should operate in this area. We should look at certain principles on which we should judge our behaviour and we should certainly look at what we are trying to do and at how we could best assist the unemployed. In doing so we have to take account of the feelings and the opportunities of unemployed people themselves and I suppose that we even have to think of our international obligations under International Labour Organisation conventions. In deciding that the scheme we introduced in the Budget would be voluntary, part time and would not substitute for full time employment, we took into account certain principles. Implict in the principles espoused by so many members of the Opposition-if not by them, by conservative members in the community-seems to be the principle that compulsory work for unemployment benefit schemes are worth while because unemployment beneficiaries are not really interested in finding work and that there is some obligation for those dependent on government handouts `to do something'-it is always `to do something'-for society in return. I do not subscribe to the dole bludger theory which is generally applied to the unemployed in this country. Of course, there are some people on the unemployment benefit who should not be getting that benefit. Of course, there are some people on the unemployment benefit who are not generally interested in finding work. But it is my experience that the majority are interested in seeking work. In fact, the latest CES data show, for instance, a ratio of 23 people registered as unemployed for every one unfilled vacancy available at the CES. Whenever jobs are advertised for young people in this country now there are queues of people seeking those jobs. The voluntary youth program demonstrates that many more than can be catered for by existing projects are willing to do voluntary community work if the opportunities are available. We believe that the community youth program which will be introduced will pick up more of those people. But to force people into such a situation and to leave the opportunity open for unscrupulous organisations or individuals to take advantage of that, as they have done in the past with some of the programs that have been introduced in this country, does not solve our problem and certainly does not do anything for those unemployed or unfortunate enough to have been in that difficult situation for so long. In terms of any reciprocal obligations to society we believe, and the social security legislation in this community has always provided, that people who are genuinely unemployed and actively looking for work are entitled to their unemployment benefit assistance. Unemployed people on the unemployment benefit are already subject to a general work test in this community. Under that work test they have to establish their legitimate status as active job seekers. To put the extra obligation on them in the absence of the availability of sufficient community work I believe is being a bit difficult and says more about our need to feel good as a community than to do something positive for the unemployed. The Australian Council of Trade Unions had this sort of thing in mind and the need for an integrated strategy to look after the unemployed when it advocated recently a five-year program designed to guarantee school, work or training opportunities under which income maintenance would be related to work, school or vocational training. That is a very different kettle of fish, I believe, from what is being suggested by the Opposition in its motion here this afternoon. Scandinavian countries and some of the other social democracies of western Europe have this sort of program in which government takes it upon itself to provide work and opportunities for training and other activities in exchange for unemployment benefit or a social benefit itself. When we reach the stage at which we can do that-the ACTU suggests it might take five years to do so-I dare say that we will have a situation in which we can have education retention rates at the sorts of levels of western Europe, which are very much higher than we have here, and the sorts of training schemes of some of those social democracies in western Europe where people can be trained with the protection of their dignity; their self-esteem will be looked after. They will therefore receive that social benefit in exchange for contributing to society but at the same time they will be more likely to be able to get work as the economy recovers. In this society we have always accepted, rightly or wrongly, that unemployment benefit is available from almost the moment someone leaves school if we cannot provide a job for that person. We will solve that problem and be able to tackle that philosophical problem that Senator Chaney talks about only as we increase the number of tertiary education places, as we have been doing; as we increase the number of traineeships available, as we have been doing; and as we increase the school retention rate, as we have been doing in the last few years. Contrary to common mythology, young people who are actually in receipt of unemployment benefit in this country are in receipt of that benefit for shorter durations than older people. We really have to look at how we allocate the resources we have. We have to ask ourselves whether it is appropriate to allocate significant additional outlays to employ young people who eventually will be employed anyway or to provide greater emphasis on the older unemployed and those long term young unemployed people who otherwise would not receive the assistance. We know the unemployed need to be put in touch with a range of education and job opportunities, but we do not see the need for compulsory work in exchange for these benefits. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.53) —The Senate is debating an urgency motion that was brought forward by the Opposition in these terms: The need for the Government to endorse the principle that some form of community work be required of those in receipt of unemployment benefit. The Australian Democrats believe that every community pays for unemployment in more than one way, and that is something which has been stressed frequently by my colleague Senator Macklin in our Party councils and in public, and by others of us. As unemployment persists in this country, we are able to see more clearly every day how true it is. Not only is unemployment unproductive in the sense that it leaves idle a valuable resource-the most valuable resource that any country has is its people-but also it is unproductive in its results. Unemployment leads, almost inevitably, to poverty, which leads to hunger and to crime. This has been demonstrated many times over recent years. A supporting parent who cannot find any work and who is living in such an expensive city as my home city of Sydney will eventually feel tempted to steal or, worse, maintain those dependants at even the most minimal of standards. This whole situation is becoming even more strongly dickensian, and the image of ragged, starving children begging in our streets comes closer to realisation, as time passes, due in no small part to the tiny allowance for children in the dole payment. I think it is $16 a week. Whoever felt anybody could support a child in a reasonable way on $16 a week? To proceed as we are now doing is cruel and inhuman in that it permits the continuance of thousands of personal tragedies which could otherwise be avoided. The evidence is steadily mounting that suicides, ill health, drug addiction and criminal activity are strongly associated with long periods of unemployment which, of course, we have in this country. The gloomy predictions that the Economic Planning Advisory Council made only this morning make it obvious that some palliative measures to share the load of unemployment will be necessary in the immediate future. I question those points made by Senator Grimes. It is not good enough for Senator Grimes to stand up here as a representative of the Government and say: `We cannot do anything about this as it costs this much money and that much money'. It is something to which the Government will have to address itself because, if EPAC is to be believed, there will not be any dramatic improvement in unemployment statistics for a very long time. In fact, we can expect the situation to worsen considerably before it gets better. That is the considered view of the Government's advisers, expressed only today. I turn to the question of work alternatives because that is what this debate is about, and properly so. It is a good thing to be debating at this time. The Australian Democrats have believed for a long time that this is one of the major issues involved in unemployment. It is now one of the issues most prominent in the mind of the public, and it should not be ignored. The dole is plainly valuable in that it does give a means of support to the unemployed. But its effects, when continued over long periods, are now being perceived as much less valuable. It is, of course, the conventional wisdom that paying an unemployment benefit, free of any obligation to work for it, is an enlightened and useful course of action, and the one offering the most dignity, personal freedom and assistance to the recipient, especially in conditions of long term unemployment. The Democrats believe that conventional wisdom now has to be questioned. In my experience-this includes talking to the people in many drop-in centres around the country-many young people see the dole system as dismissive and rejective, as a putting down of their position by society. This is especially the case, I have found, with young people who have never worked and who cannot find work because they lack job experience. They see the dole, which is provided to them without any real chance of work, as virtually a statement by society along these lines: `We have nothing for you. You are basically of no value to us but, because it would be less than decent to allow you to starve or go unclothed, here is an amount of money just sufficient to avoid those indecencies'. While there is no doubt that a few people are happy enough to go on living on the dole without seeking work, my experience is that the vast majority of the unemployed would accept work if it were the sort that they felt would give them training and some future and, especially, if it had some value to the community at large. I still believe that young people have that spirit in them, that if they felt they were doing something of value and importance they would find that an acceptable reward. They want work not only for economic reasons-let us put this myth aside-but also because their self-respect and levels of prestige in our society are dependent on it. There is still this idea of the work ethic. Because of this, I think we should start looking now at a two-tier system of unemployment benefit-a higher benefit of some kind paid to that majority of the unemployed prepared to undertake some form of useful work and the lesser benefit, perhaps the present dole, paid to those who are not prepared to do it. The Democrats resist strongly the idea that work should be compulsory for unemployed people to be given at least a minimum means of support. To take that step would be virtually to reintroduce a form of slavery-a compulsion on people to work in areas which they might find repugnant or unduly onerous. I know there are many people in the community who take a contrary view, and they say that all unemployed people should work to qualify for the dole. The Democrats believe those people are in error and need to think this through more carefully. I commend that point to the Opposition. The basic point is that one can, as the saying has it, take the horse to water but one cannot make it drink. We can compel people to work in certain areas-certainly we can say that a person will go hungry if he does not work-but does anybody in this chamber or in the community believe that we will get honest, responsible, reasonable, productive work from people in those circumstances? Of course we will not. What do we do then? Do we introduce the lash or something like that to make them work? This leads, as I suggested, into an area of alternatives that are far from palatable to a modern and reasonable society. For this reason I shall move later in this debate to amend the wording of this matter of urgency, and that will be initially a motion for suspension of Standing Orders. Another point that is worth making concerning community work programs is that when work programs are organised, which would permit all who wish to work to do so-that is what we need, I think-such programs ought to offer a wide variety of choice of occupation and should have a strong training element. Those people who say that this cannot be afforded by the community might not have stopped to consider the real cost of unemployment. One can think of all the houses that are burgled, all the young people who are going on to drugs and the amount of crime. All these things, quite apart from the actual costs of the dole, are a charge on the community. As far as I know, no real effort has been made to assess that cost. I think it is high time that the Government did. If we assessed that cost, we might be shocked at what it was. There is no doubt in my mind that the work alternative is a necessary next step in dealing with unemployment and it must be a continuing policy while unemployment is long term. There are, of course, obstacles. The basic one is the school of thought which dictates that such a move would create a sub-class of workers on lower pay scales than awards provide. That is true; it would do that. There is no way the public sector, especially in our present economic circumstances, can afford to provide work on a full time basis for half a million people on award rates and conditions. That would plainly be ridiculous. However, the fallacy of this thinking is that the only alternative that is seen is to allow our unemployed to go on rotting away mentally and physically on the dole. There is middle ground, and it must be explored and it must be brought into being. Some of the answers to these objections could be, for instance, guarantees that work undertaken as part of the work alternative would not be work that would otherwise be done by unionists. This was one of the things done by the Civilian Conservation Corps during Roosevelt's New Deal during the last Depression in the United States of America. Very valuable work was done which would not normally have been done but which was still of enormous value to the country and is still of value now. There should be a strong training element or educational element, because it is not satisfactory that we spend many thousands of dollars putting a person through the schooling process if he or she comes out of it and obviously has not benefited. What do we do? Do we regard that money as being wasted? No. When a lot of these young people reach the stage of having been on the dole for a while, they say, as some of them have said to me: `I mucked up my school, Senator; what do I do about it now?' One could say: `Go to night school', I suppose, but quite often these people, for one reason or another, do not have that kind of initiative. If a program were provided through which they could recoup their educational standards and get work experience at the same time, these young people are likely to be of value to the community instead of a drain on it and possibly a negative cost for the rest of their lives, which would happen if they turned to crime and things of that kind. I have put this view before in this place and I think it is worth while: If the Australian Council of Trade Unions feels sensitive about this-I can understand why it does-why should it not maintain a very large measure of control over such a program or even, in fact, the whole control? I think it has an obligation to the community to consider that as an alternative. A very important change which must take place is that governments, unions and employers accept the concept of permanent part time work, job sharing and voluntary early retirement. The EPAC predictions make it even more necessary. What is there now will have to be shared more widely. The message is there clear and loud in front of us. In answer to a question I asked of him in September 1983-now three years ago-the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said that the introduction of more flexible methods of work organisation was part of Australian Labor Party policy and would be implemented following discussions with all parties concerned. One small part of his answer to me at that time read: There is little doubt that greater sharing of employment opportunities through job splitting, greater facilitation of part-time work, and other measures, could expand the number of people engaged in employment. It is simply not good enough. Here we are, three years later, and the Government has still not come to grips with this obvious and necessary area of action. Plainly it has been put in the too hard basket, and that is simply not good enough. What the Democrats want is a closer tying of unemployment schemes to the community and to business. I want to mention in this context the scheme introduced some years ago in his businesses by my colleague, the Democrat senator for Victoria, Senator Siddons. He introduced a work station system on a roster basis which could be occupied by at least four young people between the ages of 16 and 22 on a permanent part time basis. In other words, that one job was split into four so that four young people instead of one could gain experience. Siddons Industries Ltd has, in fact, been carrying out this scheme for the past four years and has found it to be very successful indeed. Many of the young people who have gained work experience have gone on to get jobs elsewhere. Siddons Industries gives preference to those who would normally find it particularly difficult to find work, such as those who have difficulty with reading, or in one case a youth who had a breakdown at the age of 16. These cases invite the compassion of the community. In the experience of Siddons Industries, virtually no roster spot has been missed over the last four years, demonstrating the responsibility felt by young people in this regard and their anxiety and their eagerness to have this sort of opportunity. I have discussed the matter of permanent part time work versus short term, full time work with social workers and others concerned with young people. There is no doubt at all that the experience of having a full time job for a short time, then not having a job, is probably more shattering to a young person that never having had one at all. A permanent part time job gives responsibility, stability and dignity to these young people. It is our responsibility, wherever possible, to provide this. It can be done by incentives to industry without difficulty. I commend that thought to the Government. It is now more than a year since the Democrats' community services initiative scheme was submitted to the Government. There has been no response from the Government as yet. Basically, we asked the Government to allow an increase in permissible income to unemployed people and to pensioners to $60 a week so that there can be an incentive for them to help meet the mounting need for human services in our local communities. At present they get such a pitiful allowance it is not worth their while doing even a day's work. That is ridiculous. These services would include minor home and garden maintenance, shopping, reading, transport, et cetera, for elderly or disabled people; respite services where families are caring for a sick or disabled person; assistance to voluntary organisations and self-help groups; child care centres; community need surveys, and information distribution on local matters. Payment, we foresee, would be in addition to unemployment benefits and pensions by way of a nominal hourly service fee plus expenses incurred, for instance, for travelling. Current low levels of additional permissible income for unemployed people severely limit the amount of service fee which would be paid. They also hit hard at the business sector, especially small business-this is not generally understood-because they savagely reduce spending power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom have families and who would wish to go ahead and have that extra money. As I mentioned, the Democrats do not approve of the imputation in the motion that this should be compulsory and should apply to all young people and be required of them. Because of that, and in terms of Senator Haines's contingent notice of motion, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Haines moving an amendment to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MASON —At the request of Senator Haines, I move: Leave out `required of', insert `made available for'. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.08) —The Senate is today debating a motion of urgency in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, which reads: The need for the Government to endorse the principle that some form of community work be required of those in receipt of unemployment benefit. Apart from providing for the national defence, there is probably no other responsibility that lies as heavily upon the shoulders of a government as its obligation to create the opportunities for employment for all those who actually wish to work. This has long been a central view of the Liberal and National parties. For instance, on 9 September 1983 my colleague Mr Ian Macphee, a shadow Minister in the House of Representatives, gave an address to the Australian Institute of Management, Queensland Division, in which he said: Governments have an obligation to create an environment in which the market-place can manage effectively and fairly in the interests of all its investors-including its human capital. That is a point of view which all of the members of the Opposition would wish to endorse and to endorse without qualification. The betrayal of the human capital, which is represented by continuing high levels of unemployment, stands as one of the great condemnations of the Hawke Government since it has been in office. For instance, if one looks at the monthly economic and social indicators for September 1986, one sees that the seasonally adjusted figures for unemployment at the end of September give us unemployment, in terms of raw numbers, of 634,000, representing 8.4 per cent as an unemployment rate. That rate is extraordinarily high by any standards. It is high by world standards; it is particularly high by Australian standards. Mr Warwick Smith, the Federal member for Bass, some time ago produced an analysis of the record of the Hawke Government in terms of unemployment, compared with the record of the 86 months during which the Fraser Government was in office. He demonstrated that the figures continue to show that unemployment is at a higher rate than it was for 81 of the 86 months of the Fraser Government. Not only does that continue to be the case, but the situation is worsening. For instance, we have heard a great deal about the Priority One: Young Australia scheme. My colleague Senator Vanstone will have a great deal more to say about that. I only make the point that the unemployment rate when the Priority One scheme was introduced was 8.1 per cent; it is now 8.4 per cent. So even with all of the so-called initiatives of Priority One and all the expense more people are out of work, and in particular there are more young people out of work. For instance, the Treasury Round-up for September 1986 shows that the unemployment rate for those aged 15 to 19 years is in the vicinity of 22 per cent. That is an unbelievable statistic in a country such as Australia, and an unbelievable tragedy for the hundreds of thousands of young Australians who are affected. Above all, this Government has been deficient because it has made no real attempt to change attitudes; it has made no real attempt to recognise the social, psychological and personal consequences of unemployment. The Government takes the attitude that all one needs to do is provide more financial assistance, to find more money for particular schemes, to regard the Treasury as a bottomless pit and to dole out financial handouts rather than seek to change structures-as Senator Chaney has said, to change work practices-and attitudes throughout the community. People have recognised that for centuries. The great historian, Plutarch, in his Life of Coriolanus, wrote: For it was well and truly said that the first destroyer of the liberties of a people is he who first gave them bounties and largesses. It appears that this Government has no solution other than more bounties and more largesses. The important issue, as I have said, is that of establishing and understanding the creation of a psychology of dependency among people who are condemned to prolonged periods of unemployment. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the most distinguished of the United States senators, had this to say in his book Family and Nation: The issue of welfare is the issue of dependency. It is different from poverty. To be poor is an objective condition; to be dependent, a subjective one as well. He went on to say that the important thing about that is that it brings about a situation which is somehow different from the norm. He said of this dependency: It is an incomplete state in life: normal in the child, abnormal in the adult. In a world where complete men and women stand on their own feet, persons who are dependent-as the buried imagery of the word denotes-hang. It is important to understand that it is in the creation and continuation of this idea of dependency, this feeling of dependency, that the root of this great problem lies. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has studied this question and has focused on the question of unemployment among youth in particular. In the OECD Observer of November 1985 it is reported that unemployment for people aged 15 to 24 years is `a serious social threat that could undermine the mechanisms of training, education and the provision of human infrastructure for the society of the future'. It went on to say that these days education itself is simply not enough, stating: At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that initiatives confined strictly to traditional educational systems will not be enough to put an end to the difficulties encountered by young people today. It went on to make the point that many young people intentionally bring about a situation where they are under-employed and that they sometimes spurn the labour market and can make a career out of welfare, supplemented by undeclared incomes. The motion put forward by Senator Chaney today seeks to address fundamentally the issue of dependency. It seeks to address fundamentally the psychological point involved in the long term condemnation of individuals to a welfare dependency situation. Professor Wolfgang Kasper in his book The Destruction and Creation of Jobs drew particular attention to the social costs of high unemployment. He said that Australia was at risk of losing sections of its youth to cynicism, despair and bitterness as high levels of unemployment denied them the right to a bright and happy future. He said that society: . . . should not be complacent about the loss of productive potential and the redistribution of incomes and life opportunities implicit in large scale unemployment, unemployment is the single most important cause of poverty. It is the breaking of this trap, this vicious circle of unemployment dependency and therefore lack of self-esteem, lack of capacity to gain work and lack of capacity to hold down meaningful jobs, that this motion introduced by Senator Chaney seeks to address. It is important to understand the long term impact of prolonged periods of unemployment. An article by Robert Hadler in the Australian on 2 September dealt with a recent report. The article stated: People on the dole show far less initiative in seeking new work and stay unemployed for much longer periods than those who do not register for unemployment benefits, a government job search survey has shown. Those registered on the dole with the Commonwealth Employment Service took an average of 60 weeks to find a job, while those not on the dole took an average of nearly 22 weeks to do the same. The position is even more acute for young people in that circumstance. When Mr Peter Kirby undertook his major study on behalf of the Commonwealth and produced his report entitled `Labour Market Programs', he made a particular point about previous job creation schemes in Australia. Quoting from a publication of R. E. Smith from the Australian National University, he stated: The Australian programs are more oriented towards providing immediate employment for members of the target group, rather than increasing their long-term earnings potential. He went on in his recommendations to focus on the creation of permanent opportunities. His first recommendation was: The primary objective for any labour market program should be to enhance the participant's long term employment and earnings prospects through the development of a needs based approach, in which individually tailored packages are devised in appropriate combinations from the available assistance. His second recommendation was: The barriers which prevent or deter people from engaging in education and training while they are without employment should be reviewed and, as far as possible, removed. Available resources should be transferred from passive to active forms of assistance. That is precisely what Senator Chaney's motion is all about. This recommendation seeks to bring about a situation in which some form of community based work is required of those who seek to draw the unemployment benefit and who seek to exercise the right they have to a degree of government support but who have in the past not been required to demonstrate any active obligation to contribute in return. The Australian Democrats amendment moved by Senator Mason is simply another weak and feeble opt-out provision. It is a motherhood statement that work should be available for rather than required of. If work were available for, presumably there would be no need for the unemployment benefit in the fashion that we currently pay it. It is not to be thought that Australia is not taking steps in this direction. This week's issue of Time magazine contains an interesting article dealing with the work which is going on at the Prahran College of Technical and Further Education in Melbourne, where people are being given assistance to provide themselves with skills which will make them more likely to be employable in both the long run and the short run. I conclude by coming back to my central point, that is to say, to the value of the work ethic, of work experience and of a practical personal commitment to find work and to undertake work. The American sociologist, Mickey Kaus, in a publication entitled The Work Ethic State has attempted to analyse this. I do not believe that the points could be put more succinctly, or that the purport of Senator Chaney's motion could be more adequately summed up than by Mr Kaus's words. He states: Welfare doesn't work. Work ``incentives'' don't work. Training doesn't work. Work ``requirements'' don't work. ``Work experience'' doesn't work and even workfare doesn't quite work. Only work works. That is the purport, the whole thrust of the motion which Senator Chaney has put before the Senate today-that only work works. Only the practical experience of work provides people with the necessary skills to move into long term situations of employment and employability. Only practical experience, only real work, allows people to break out of the cycle of dependency and the psychological traps of dependency which, unless they are addressed and overcome, will destroy a large proportion of an entire generation of young Australians whose blighted futures will stand permanently as an accusation against the incompetence, the lack of care and the lack of ability that this Government has demonstrated since it was first elected. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(4.21) —This afternoon the Senate is discussing the following motion of urgency proposed in this place by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney: The need for the Government to endorse the principle that some form of community work be required of those in receipt of unemployment benefit. The Australian Democrats have moved an amendment to that motion seeking to delete the words `required of' and in their place to insert the words `made available for'. The opinion of honourable senators on this side of the House is that the Democrats' amendment will be supported. It gives some sense to a proposition which indeed is a matter of urgency; nobody in the community in Australia would doubt that. In introducing the motion of urgency, Senator Chaney called for the matter to be discussed in a calm and rational way. He emphasised the need for calm and rational discussion and to avoid any sort of inflammatory approach to this problem. That proposal would be supported not only by honourable senators on the other side of the chamber but also by honourable senators on this side of the chamber and people out in the community. But, unfortunately-it is unfortunate not only for the Liberal Party but also for the people of Australia-Senator Chaney has a dwindling influence within his Party despite the fact that he is the Leader of the Liberals on that side of the chamber. I refer to a very happy picture that appeared in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald. It shows the smiling face of the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, sitting in company with a Liberal hopeful, Ian Storey, and one Charles Copeman. Charles Copeman appears to be having a greater influence on the Liberal Party than is perhaps Senator Chaney. I will quote directly from the article of what Mr Howard said of Charles Copeman. The article states: ``We've had a whopper of a scare campaign over the last few weeks over something called the New Right,'' Mr Howard said. ``And I'm happy that Charles Copeman is here. He's a person I admire very greatly. ``Of all of the people I've met in that so-called grouping there is nothing extreme or un-Australian about them. And most of their ideas are increasingly ideas that middle class Australians are expressing. ``I think quite honestly the whole thing is a big yawn in political terms and purely a diversionary tactic by the Labor Party.'' Mr Howard said the Government had acted as if it had a problem by erecting the New Right as a ``bogey man'' and then attacking it to try to divide the Liberal Party. I certainly think there are divisions within the Liberal Party. Let us compare the speeches here this afternoon of Senator Chaney and Senator Puplick with the actions of Mr Charles Copeman. On the very bottom of this article in today's Sydney Morning Herald is a reference to page 4 of the same newspaper. The headline on page 4 is: `Peko under angry Govt investigation'. Why would the New South Wales Government investigate Peko-Wallsend Ltd, the Chief Executive of which, Mr Charles Copeman-he has had a high public profile in recent weeks-is a very close friend of John Howard and someone whom John Howard admires? The reason is that the Besco Batteries factory in Villawood in Sydney is a member of the corporation that Peko- Wallsend controls. On Friday of last week, just three days ago, that company shut up shop, lock, stock and barrel, tight as a drum, and in the process sacked 500 workers. It chucked 500 working people out of jobs. The increasing influence of the New Right in the Liberal Party may be the reason why we have this matter of urgency raised this afternoon. The advisers to the Liberal Party, the close friends of the leadership of the Liberal Party, are indeed increasing the numbers of people on unemployment benefit right throughout Australia. Peko-Wallsend is on most people's lips because it came to fame in June of this year in the Pilbara in Western Australia when that company, whose Chief Executive Charles Copeman, is a close friend of John Howard, took it upon itself to sack over 1,100 workers. Those 1,100 workers were tossed on to the scrap-heap because of allegedly unproductive work practices. It has taken many months to prove that those practices are unproductive. As yet it has not been totally proved. What kind of calm and rational discussion can we have with a party so dominated by this new thinking, this new activity, that prevails within the Opposition? It was only earlier this month that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr N. A. Brown, said publicly that he wants to abolish benefits for all long term unemployed people. He wants to abolish benefits to those people most in need, the long term unemployed. I ask honourable senators: Where is the Opposition going and where can we get calm and reasonable discussion on this very important matter? One Malcolm Fraser, who was a leader of the Liberal Party, very recently called for the abolition of the unemployment benefit to 16- and 17-year-olds, along with cuts in employment schemes. The Liberals want to cut, cut, cut and at the same time to set up grandiose schemes for compulsory work for the unemployed and to hire an army of public servants to police those schemes. At the same time they call for cuts in government spending and cuts in the strength of the Public Service. This motion of urgency represents another example of the callous and insensitive campaign being waged in our community by the Opposition and its cohorts of the New Right against those unfortunate people in Australia, the unemployed, who do not have jobs to go to at the moment. Essentially, such a campaign seeks to blame the unemployed for the fact that they are unemployed. It is the tradition that has worked so well for honourable senators opposite in the past-that of blaming the victims. The implications of the argument put are that the unemployed, particularly our young unemployed, should be punished, and compelled to work in some ill-defined community jobs. Perhaps this could be the digging of holes and filling them back up again, clipping grass with nail clippers or something such as that, because at the moment there just are not enough jobs to go around. We have discussed this matter in this place on many other occasions. Why are there not enough jobs to go around? What is the level of investment taking place in Australia today? Who advises about investment? Again, let me refer honourable senators to another stalwart of the Liberal Party of Australia, one John Elliott. Mr Elliott, who is the Federal Treasurer of the Liberal Party, last week called for business people not to invest in Australia. Senator Robert Ray —Another traitor. Senator McKIERNAN —Indeed, another traitor, as Senator Robert Ray says. This financial wizard of the Liberal Party, John Elliott, who has made his money, I would suggest, from workers who drink Foster's beer-because he now owns that company-will now invest off shore the profits from the beer that workers drink. I certainly will not be drinking Foster's beer in the future, although I will not be entirely taking the pledge. Senator Kilgariff —What brand are you going to drink? Senator McKIERNAN —There is a very good brand from South Australia, I understand, by the name of Cooper's. I have not tried that one yet. Indeed, I might even refer to a brewery in my own State which is continuing to employ people, that of Alan Bond. It may help him win some yacht races at the moment as well. Let me return to the campaign that is being waged at the moment. It is a destructive and divisive campaign at a time when we need co-operation, consultation and a rational and reasonable discussion on the issues affecting Australia's economy at the moment. We do not need the divisive tactics that are being engaged in. We can look, yet again, for leadership to the trade union movement, in the recent announcements by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to which Senator Chaney referred. Honourable senators opposite have tried to claim that initiative as part of their policies. The argument that Senator Chaney used to prove that it was part of the Opposition's policy included a quotation from the Sunday slimes-I am sorry, I did say `the Sunday slimes', but I really meant to say `the National Times on Sunday'; we call it `the Sunday slimes' for short on this side of the House. I will talk in some little detail about that in a moment. The notion that the unemployed, be they young or old, should be compelled to work for the unemployment benefit ignores the reason why such a benefit exists. It exists because unemployment exists and because this community of Australia is of the view that all its members are entitled to a decent living allowance. It is insensitive to seek to punish our unemployed by forcing them into working in jobs with little or no social worth and into performing work for under-award payments when any realistic assessment of our economy reveals that full employment is not possible. The Opposition is quick to claim the ACTU's proposal as an endorsement of its own work for the dole campaign. In fact, the two proposals have nothing in common. The ACTU proposal is designed as a positive strategy to equip our unemployed, particularly our young unemployed, with the skills, training and education that our industry can use while at the same time ensuring that our young people can feel that they are indeed our most valuable resource. The ACTU proposal suggests the development of a five-year program for 16- to 19-year olds which guarantees educational, training, or work opportunities under which income maintenance is to be related to educational work or vocational training, and only if they are not available will the person be entitled to unemployment benefit. The motivation here is vastly different from that of the Opposition. It is a positive attempt to improve our skill and training base. Indeed, it can be seen as an extension of the Government's traineeship scheme. It is an attempt to strengthen the relationship between employment training and schooling. As I have said, the matter of urgency is, indeed, a matter of urgency. Senators on this side of the House agree with that. It is something that the Government has been addressing since attaining office in March 1983 when 691,000 people were unemployed, in seasonally adjusted figures. Despite an enormous growth in the labour force, that figure has now been reduced to 634,000. Our strategies and policies are in place; our new program has recently been announced; and it will go a long way to resolving the particular problems that large sections of our community face. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(4.35) —The Senate is debating today a matter of urgency proposed by Senator Chaney; that is: The need for the Government to endorse the principle that some form of community work be required of those in receipt of unemployment benefit. The contributions to the debate this afternoon have been many and varied, but none were more startling than that of Senator McKiernan, who cannot seem to perceive the debate in any terms other than the suggestion that unemployed people should be punished for being unemployed by being made to work. If the good senator cannot see this debate in a light other than that, it would be my suggestion that he would have done better not to have participated in the debate at all. There are, I think, three matters that need to be considered in support of this motion. The first is the opportunity that such a system would offer to young people, to old people or to anyone who is unemployed. The second principle that needs to be considered is that such a scheme would provide some return in kind for the expenditure on unemployment benefit. The third principle is that such a system would provide a restriction on the abuse that is being undertaken by many in the community. I will deal with those principles one by one. Let me deal first with the opportunity that the endorsement of this principle, if finally put into practice, would offer. The first thing that this sort of system would offer is a way out of dependency. My colleague Senator Puplick has already made some comments in this regard and I would like to expand on those comments. People who are on the unemployment benefit are dependent on the state; there is no way around that. In that respect, I would like to return to some comments I made in my maiden speech and briefly reiterate them here, because they are relevant to the point of dependency and to the situation that we put people in when we put them on any form of benefit, including, obviously, the unemployment benefit. I said this: All of these welfare recipients have a limited income. They are all poor. A new identity has been forced upon them and they have become reliant upon the state for their most basic needs. This is a humiliating and dangerous position to put them in. They are becoming the children of the State. They have become institutionalised just as surely as if they had been given a uniform, and we probably have already given them a number-- And, of course, we have. I went on to say: Few have yet adequately grasped or recognised the nature of this new client state-suspicious, more sophisticated, more articulate and yet more helpless, more bitter and more resigned. And so with the best of intentions, the state has paid out millions in welfare and without realising it, has created this new client state, with people trapped by the state-with no future beyond the next welfare cheque. There must be a better way-a way that enables welfare recipients to retain a greater degree of individuality, a way that will free them from the prison of dependence on the state and will enhance the individual's opportunity to set in train his or her own advancement. I still believe what I said at that time, and I think those remarks are particularly relevant to the debate on whether or not people who are in receipt of the unemployment benefit should be required to make some sort of contribution back to the community in exchange for that. The word `required' can mean that we are making the unemployed do this because it is what they should do, and one could infer from that some sort of punishment. One could, but one need not. One can also see in that the opportunity that it creates for people. The first opportunity is to get out of the notion of being dependent. We have all heard the slogan `dole bludger', a most demoralising and insulting term. To some people this applies as a perfect description of their desire and intention to take from the system all they can and to give nothing, but for many others it is a most inappropriate term. It is an inappropriate term for the many young people who are now looking for jobs and for whom there are not enough jobs. The Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, has told the Senate that the ratio of people looking for jobs to jobs available is 23: 1, and he relies on Commonwealth Employment Service figures. I put it to him that the ratio is not quite as high as that. I know many employers who simply do not bother registering jobs with the CES because they believe that the CES is quite incompetent at matching the unemployed skills in the community with the jobs available and seek to fill the positions themselves. I do not think that would necessarily reduce the ratio to such a substantial extent that the point Senator Grimes was making would not be true-that is, that there are many more people seeking jobs than there are jobs available. Those people should not have to be subjected to the term `dole bludger', neither should the people who are retrenched because the economy is in such a parlous condition, being run by the Labor Government; neither should the people who would like to get another job be called dole bludgers. It is not a term that should be used to apply to people of all ages with inadequate skills for the jobs on offer-people who are willing and able to work but whose skills do not match the jobs on offer. It is inappropriate to refer to those people as dole bludgers. If we had a system in which people who were in receipt of the unemployment benefit were contributing in some way to the community, I contend that the term `dole bludger' would no longer be applied and that it would take an enormous emotional burden from those who were genuinely seeking jobs and could not find them. The benefit of relieving them of that burden, that insult that is cast upon them by many unthinking people as a consequence of the fact that there are some dole bludgers, would be very great. The second way in which such a system would offer an opportunity is that it would provide the opportunity for work experience-work experience either as a learning process if the unemployed person had never had a job, or reinforcement of experience and retention or maintenance of work skills. In that sense I believe that such a scheme would provide opportunities. The second principal benefit which I mentioned and which was mentioned originally by Senator Chaney is that there would be some return for expenditure. The community is only too aware of the parlous economic situation; it is concerned at growing government expenditure and looks to the enormous expenditure on welfare and asks what it is getting in return. If people in receipt of unemployment benefit were to make some contribution to the community, I think that would be a fair equation. The third aspect in support of such a system is that it would put great restrictions on abuse, because if a person had to offer some community work in exchange for the benefit received, it would make it much more difficult for someone to receive an additional number of cheques under pseudo- nyms, or whatever term is used for people who change their name to get extra benefits. Senator Durack —Aliases. Senator VANSTONE —Aliases; I thank the honourable senator. I wish to return to the nature of welfare benefits so that there is no misunderstanding as to my views. Unemployment benefits, as with other forms of welfare assistance, should be seen as essential transitional support, not a trap that seduces people into permanent dependence. It is true, as Senator Mason said, that young people want to work-for money, yes, but for reasons in addition to money; for self-respect. We should be providing them with that opportunity when they are receiving unemployment benefits. Programs should try to assure recipients the same balance of rights and obligations that non-dependent people face in their daily lives. Thirdly, some form of community work in return for the receipt of unemployment benefits provides a means to restore connections between the society and its marginal members. It stops people floating around just collecting cheques and feeling less and less involved in their community. These points need to be considered. Speakers on the government benches have tried to evade the principal point which has been made and have referred to the administrative difficulties and costs of endorsing such a system. Such difficulties and costs are not denied. The Opposition seeks endorsement of a principle towards which we can work. There will be disagreement about the details and they should be faced as they arise on a one by one basis, but let us get the principle sorted out first. Some time ago on 11 June when the Prime Minister made his address to the nation some of us believed that perhaps the principle was about to be sorted out. The Prime Minister said on that occasion: First, while society has a responsibility to the unemployed, this is a two-way process. The time has come, we believe, when this two-way responsibility will best be served by providing as far as possible the opportunity, particularly for the younger recipients of unemployment benefit . . . But he was particularly evasive when interviewed following that statement. He refused to say that he believed that community work should be made compulsory. In a most idealistic fashion, he was of the view that if the work was offered it would be undertaken. From my reading of the transcripts of the interview with the Prime Minister, he refused to say what the Government would do if the work was offered and refused. All the Opposition is seeking here is some commitment to a principle from the Government. We are not seeking an outline in detail of the program the Government would or would not undertake; we are simply seeking an endorsement of the principle. On 24 June an article written by Trevor Kennedy appeared in the Bulletin. He made the point that one does not need to be an Einstein to figure out that the dole can become a way of life for young children. Some members on this side of the House suggest that young people flock to Queensland to go on the dole in the pleasant weather there. I do not want to comment on that, but I want to draw attention to the question asked by Trevor Kennedy, which was as follows: What is wrong then with asking able-bodied young men and women between the ages of 16 and 21 to work to qualify for the dole? As he points out, it would at least teach them that there is not anything for nothing. He goes on in that article: With luck it would cause many of them to seek alternative employment in a far more energetic fashion. If the plan involves too great an increase in the bureaucracy, the Government at least could require kids to accept jobs offered to them, rather than letting them get `unsuitable' work-and still collect the dole. He went on in that article to deal with the claim that any sort of community work should be offered on a voluntary basis. He said: The social workers lobby argued that the scheme must be voluntary and that there are dangers of producing hordes of unskilled people. As he then points out: The hordes already exist-and one of the big problems is that too many of them are illiterate in one of the greatest problems Australia has-the need to work. They are the sentiments of Trevor Kennedy, and to an extent I endorse them. Comment was made by Senator McKiernan relating to the Government's Priority One: Young Australia program. Honourable senators will remember the flash in the pan that turned out to be. When the Prime Minister released that program, he was to talk to hundreds, if not thousands of young Australians. In fact he spoke to 172 in a phone-in. The Government was to offer 10,000 traineeships in the first year. We are now into the second year, but even in the first year the best the Government could manage was a total of 2,449. The Priority One scheme has a 10 per cent dropout rate, and the bulk of the positions are with Commonwealth, State and local government public service when, in fact, it was intended that it should be a private sector scheme. The Government's plans in this area are not working. All the Opposition seeks is the Government's endorsement of the principle that some form of community work be required of those who are in receipt of the unemployment benefit. To deny them that community work is to deny them the opportunity to escape the tag of `dole bludger' and the dependency that is associated with it. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(4.50) —Senator Vanstone made some disparaging comments about the Commonwealth Employment Service and I wish to comment on that first. If she wishes to make such comments, she should produce evidence to back up her claims. The Commonwealth Employment Service and the people who work in that organisation are efficient and they should not be disparaged in this way without evidence being presented to back up such statements. I wish to make one other comment about the argument of the previous speaker. Apparently at one stage Senator Vanstone said that she would like to see a compulsory system of community work so that people would no longer use the term `dole bludger'. That term was often used by some members of the previous Government, particularly in that Government's early stages. We could get rid of that term `dole bludger' in other ways. We need a more intelligent approach to the needs of the unemployed. If we had such an approach that term would not be used. We do not need the sort of provisions that are outlined in the urgency motion in order to get rid of the term `dole bludger'. I remind honourable senators that this afternoon we are debating a motion by the Opposition: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: the need for the Government to endorse the principle that some form of community work be required of those in receipt of unemployment benefit. The Australian Democrats have suggested an amendment to that motion. That amendment is that the words `required of' be left out and the words `made available for' be inserted. I will return to that amendment later. I believe that the Senate should accept the amendment in lieu of the motion that has been proposed by the Opposition. For those who have never been out of work, there is often a superficial attraction in suggesting that the unemployed should work for benefits. Many of those who have been in the position of not being able to find work, really do want meaningful work. A compulsory work for benefits scheme is not regarded by those people as acceptable. Some members of the Right-and I suppose, in 1986, the New Right-regard the unemployed as victims of their own circumstances who should be taught a lesson by receiving no unemployment benefit. Fortunately, that philosophy has not taken hold in this country. By far the majority of Australians consider that those who are out of work should be helped financially until they gain work and therefore an income. This superficially attractive idea that the unemployed should work for their unemployment benefit is proposed by those who should know better. Perhaps they see their proposition as being electorally attractive. Do they care more about their own electoral chances than they do about the unemployed? I certainly hope not. This urgency motion does not say that those without a job should be encouraged to undertake some form of community employment. To some extent-but I stress it is only to some extent-I would agree with some encouragement of this kind being given to the unemployed. However, if this encouragement became a de facto compulsion, I would not agree with it. For example, if employers began to insist that prospective employees should have performed voluntary work, the voluntary aspect of this scheme would disappear and compulsion would become the norm. Compulsion is obviously what the Opposition wants. After all, its urgency motion notes that some form of community work `be required of those in receipt of unemployment benefit'. Although I do not like to use the word `dole', I must point out that the Opposition's proposal is little more than a thinly veiled work-for-the-dole scheme. I suspect that not many people would object to the unemployed doing some form of community work voluntarily. Some do so now; those who do are to be commended. On the other hand, those who do not should not be condemned. I doubt whether the Opposition has really thought through this proposal. Has it properly costed it? To have a compulsory scheme, which would have to be policed, would require some government expenditure. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) earlier suggested that to introduce a compulsory scheme of working for benefits would cost $700m a year, over and above the cost of unemployment benefits. An army of public servants would be required to police the scheme. Compulsory community work, as proposed by the Opposition, would not cost as much but there would be substantial costs involved. Has the Opposition considered whether all unemployed people would have access to community work? I am thinking particularly of those in isolated areas and perhaps those in areas where there are so many unemployed people that all possible forms of community work would be taken. What happens then? Do the unemployed have to travel to an area where they can undertake some community service? That would be rather reminiscent of people moving from place to place to draw rations, as was the case in the days of the Great Depression. There are far too many aspects of this compulsion proposal to make it a workable proposition. I suspect that the Opposition knows this, but is trying to make political capital out of the plight of those who cannot find work. I was particularly interested in the Opposition's proposal because of the untenable level of unemployment that has developed in the State I represent. A great deal of the blame for this must lie at the feet of the Queensland State Government. This is no idle claim, because unemployment figures in Queensland have continuously been either the highest in Australia or far above the national average. Let me mention the unemployment statistics in Queensland, because these are relevant to the matter we are discussing this afternoon. The most recent official figures available are for September 1986. At the end of September, 113,800 people were unemployed in Queensland, and that represented an almost 12 per cent increase over the figure for the previous September. Again, in September 1986, Queensland's unemployment rate was 9.3 per cent, compared with 8.7 per cent one year earlier. The Australian average in September 1986 was 8.3 per cent, compared with 9.3 per cent for Queensland. I shall try to put that in some sort of context, because it is very easy to mention numbers and percentages. If the rate of unemployment in Queensland were the same as the national average, we would have 12,100 extra people employed in that State. That illustrates the sort of unemployment problem we have in Queensland. That figure of 12,100 people is about the same as the whole population of Gympie or Hervey Bay; it is about half the population of Mount Isa or twice the population of Kingaroy. All those extra people would be employed in Queensland if our figures were about the national average. It is significant that as the parties campaign for the forthcoming election in Queensland, the ruling National Party of Australia has not given any indication that the plight of the unemployed in that State will receive the attention it deserves. Unfortunately, a negative approach has been adopted by the outgoing Premier of Queensland. Against all the statistical evidence to the contrary, he claims that the high unemployment in Queensland is caused by young southerners who are exploiting the social security system. That is the type of unsustainable anecdotal evidence to which Senator Grimes referred earlier. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's claims in this regard are baseless and his efforts to assist the unemployed are non-existent. This is in direct contrast to the attitude of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. The provision of employment is high on its list of priorities. Yesterday Mr Warburton, on behalf of the Labor Party in Queensland, said: To combat youth unemployment we will allocate $41m in 1987 to fund our specific YES or Youth Employment Schemes program. To all young Queens- landers leaving school, my Government will extend a youth guarantee: the guarantee of either a job, job training or the opportunity of further education. This type of approach to the provision of jobs as outlined by Mr Warburton should be the principal aim of any Queensland Government. It will certainly be the aim of a Queensland Labor Government. The aim should not be, as proposed by the Opposition, to coerce the unemployed into some form of community work for those who cannot find work. If the Opposition's proposition is so great, one would expect that it would have been tried and implemented overseas. The plain fact is that compulsory work for benefit schemes are not common-place in comparable overseas countries. In the United Kingdom and Canada, for example, voluntary schemes have been introduced which are similar to what is already present in Australia and is being built upon by this Government. In the United States of America, which has been used by proponents of a compulsory scheme as some type of model, compulsory schemes are by no means widespread. I would like to give details of a scheme which is used in Canada. The voluntary initiatives program has been in operation in Canada since December 1983. The major aim of this program is to provide unemployed people with voluntary opportunities to work within voluntary charit- able organisations. Unemployed people of any age on unemployment insurance are eligible to participate without having their entitlement to unemployment insurance affected. They receive from the Federal Government, in addition to their unemployment insurance benefit, $60 for working a full week, which is a minimum of 30 hours, and $30 for working part time, which is at least 15 hours. Full time participants must spend one half day per week actively looking for work. In this program work opportunities can range in duration from six to 52 weeks and must satisfy the following conditions: At least 15 hours work per week; must provide participants with any necessary training and/or experience to maintain or develop employability; and must not displace existing paid or volunteer employees. Further, sponsors must be registered or assessed as charitable organisations or foundations. There are some further requirements in relation to the program. I should mention that at January 1985 550 agreements had been signed representing some 2,100 positions in the voluntary sector. This scheme is provided by the Canadian Government for those who have not worked but are able to work within charitable organisations. I stress that it is a voluntary scheme, not the type of compulsory scheme which has been mentioned in the motion moved by the Opposition. I mention briefly a scheme which is used in Massachusetts in the United States. The scheme, which is called the employment and training choices program, was introduced in 1983. It enables welfare recipients to participate on a voluntary basis in a wide range of activities. These activities include education and training, supported work experience, career planning and job placement. Again I stress that that scheme is voluntary. If the Opposition wants to develop policies it should take account of schemes such as this and should examine the positive scheme which has been developed by the Hawke Government. The Opposition should not take the easy way out by simply proposing a slick but largely unworkable scheme for the unemployed. The matter raised by the Opposition is ill-thought out and, not being a matter that the Government should contemplate, can by no stretch of the imagination be regarded as a matter of urgency. I suggest that the amendment moved by Senator Mason be accepted and the Opposition's proposition be rejected. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.05) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. Needless to say, I disagree with some of them, including the remarks made by Senator Colston who has just resumed his seat. I thank in particular Senator Grimes, who raised some of the issues which need to concern us about this matter. In an environment where the Government has made very conflicting statements-clearly there is a variety of views within the Government-I welcome the fact that for the bulk of the debate this afternoon serious attention was given to the genuine issues. The Opposition has put forward the proposition that it is a matter of urgency that the Government endorse the principle that some form of community work be required of those in receipt of unemployment benefit. It does so because it believes that that would be in the interests of the unemployed, the community and taxpayers. As far as the unemployed are concerned, it is fascinating to find that 77 per cent of unemployed people who were surveyed in the past month or so said that they were ready to accept working for their dole. A survey which was done in June of this year, the result of which was published in July, of people who wanted Australians to work for the dole, showed that only 4 per cent of Australians stood up and supported the status quo; 39 per cent supported a voluntary approach; and 56 per cent supported a compulsory approach. I do not believe that the Government of this country should be conducted on the basis of opinion polls; I merely quote those figures to show that there is, for the best possible reasons, broad community support for the notion that requiring some social obligation on the part of those who are paid by the taxpayer is no more unreasonable than requiring social obligations on the part of those who work. Indeed, the Opposition believes that the adoption of this principle would be a great step forward in a social sense as well as an economic sense. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I will finish by quoting a passage from a very thoughtful book which has been written about the United States of America situation, entitled Beyond Entitlement, which deals with the problem of obligations and social policy. I quote from the first chapter of the book, which states: Washington does give too much to the poor-in the sense of benefits given as entitlements. The comments which follow apply to the social security system which I administered and which is currently administered by this Government. The author goes on: It also gives too little-in the sense of meaningful obligations to go along with the benefits. What undermines the economy is not so much the burden on the private sector as the message government programs have given that hard work in available jobs is no longer required of Americans. The main problem with the welfare state is not its size but its permissiveness, a characteristic that both liberals and conservatives seem to take for granted. The challenge to welfare statesmanship is not so much to change the extent of benefits as to couple them with serious work and other obligations that would encourage functioning and thus promote the integration of recipients. I respectfully adopt those words as being very close to my own personal view. After years of working with people who suffer the very great disadvantage of unemployment, I do not believe that anybody who has a working history in this country-I would put in that category honourable senators opposite such as Senator McIntosh; people who have worked in a range of circumstances and with a range of men-would doubt that for many young Australians, in particular, the present system is demoralising and unhelpful to them. The imposition of some social obligation for those who are in receipt of unemployment benefit or are entitled to be in receipt of unemployment benefit would be a great step forward for them, the community and ultimately the taxpayers. I regret that the amendment which has been moved by the Australian Democrats will have the support of the Government. We will vote against that amendment, but we will support the amended motion, if the amendment is carried, because we believe that that is a more desirable situation than the present situation where for many people unemployment is simply an indication of the fact that unemployed people are outside the mainstream of Australian society in a way which is extremely destructive for them and their self-esteem. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Mason's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. Cooney, B. Powell, J. F. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertDevlin, R. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sanders, N. K. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Siddons, J. R. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Harradine, B. Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Short, J. R. Collard, S. J. Teague, B. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Knowles, S. C. Bolkus, N. Hill, R. Walsh, P. A. Jessop, D. S. Button, J. N. Messner, A. J. McClelland, Douglas Watson, J. O. W. Robertson, E. A. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This one-page statement by the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) shows the Government's true colours, its contempt for the people of the Australian Capital Territory and its complete disregard for the principles of local decision-making in the Australian Capital Territory. I believe that this paper is a disgrace. It has been brought on under Government papers rather than in Government Business as a ministerial statement so that we each have only five minutes to talk on this matter which is of prime importance to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. Despite various attempts by the Minister to insinuate otherwise, I wish to point out to the Senate that the self-government package has not been debated in the Senate. We have not had a chance to debate this very important issue. It lies at the bottom of the Notice Paper at the choice of the Government, not at the choice of either the Opposition or the Australian Democrats. The Government is now moving from proposing self-government, which is what it is proposing under its Australian Capital Territory Council Bill, to no self-government at all under the Advisory Council Ordinance. This Advisory Council is simply a group of people who will have cosy chats about what the Minister wants them to talk about. The sad thing about it is that we will be paying that group to do this. Of course, the Minister, without coming to this Parliament, could choose a group of 13 people, 24 people or any number of people and get these people around him to give him advice. However, he has failed to do this in the past. He has failed to take advice from the community in the past and now he will formalise the situation by getting a group of Yes, Minister people actually to tell him what he wants to hear and to give him a cosy feeling. This is a costly non-proposal. The Government is appointing a new statutory body-a new quango-which I am sure the Liberal Party of Australia will be against. It will cost the people of Australia extra money and it will not achieve any of the purposes which the Minister proposes. The sad saga associated with this is that over the years Ministers have ignored the elected Assembly. There is the case of the Tobacco Ordinance 1927 which was meant to be revised earlier this year, but nothing has happened about it. There is the case of the Nuclear Activities (Prohibition) Ordinance which was put forward by the Assembly and which was ignored by the Minister for 19 months from 17 April 1984. We are still waiting for all these things to be brought before the Parliament. In relation to the Tobacco Ordinance, we have heard in the Senate that the tobacco industry has been printing special cigarette packets for Qantas Airways Ltd. The Minister for Territories told us he could not make the revived Tobacco Ordinance follow arrangements agreed to by all Health Ministers in 1985 because it would cost the industry too much to print simple health warnings just for the Australian Capital Territory. That was thoroughly dishonest of the tobacco industry, as is the whole proposal in this paper. Tomorrow I will be moving for the disallowance of the Ordinance which is associated with this statement of the Minister, and I hope to gain support from the Senate in so doing because the proposal is an insult to the people of the Australian Capital Territory, the people of Australia and this Parliament. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.22) —We are discussing a paper entitled `Future ACT Administration'. It appears to be a ministerial statement put out in the form of a Press release and now brought in here as if it were a paper. I would agree that it is hardly the appropriate way to be debating this matter. I notice also that no financial statement is attached to it, although the Advisory Council Ordinance 1986 that has been tabled refers very clearly to remuneration of the people who will comprise the Advisory Council that the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) intends to appoint. Since this matter came up, I have said that the Minister is entitled to have an advisory body, if he so wishes, but I do not think we quite envisaged that it would take this form. It is clear that it is intended that the members will be remunerated. The Ordinance provides for remuneration to be fixed either by the Remuneration Tribunal, or, it would seem, by the Minister himself. That leads me to the number of advisers that he wishes to have. We all know that he recently appointed one of the former members of the House of Assembly to his staff as an adviser in a paid position. Mr Whalan is a person whom the Minister is entitled to have on his staff, if he so wishes, but that seems a little odd in the light of this. We are told that it will be an advisory council comprising 12 councillors and a president, 13 in all. I would have thought that was a far cry from what is stated here: The Government has now established a small statutory body to be known as the ACT Advisory Council. I would suggest that a body with 13 members is far from small. I would regard that as a fairly large advisory council. I wish to refer to another paragraph which states: The role of the new advisory council will be to advise the Minister for Territories on matters he refers to it. Then, in a quite contradictory way, he goes and says: It is my intention to give the Council a standing instruction to offer advice on an ongoing basis on any issue of concern to the Government and the ACT community. It could be meeting 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and it could thus become the most expensive advisory council that anyone could contemplate. It is quite different for the Minister to appoint a small group of people whom he has chosen and whom he would regard as suitable to give balanced advice on affairs in this community than to embark upon having a body of 13 people to be paid. Who knows what sort of a structure will be set up? Nothing gives any indication at all as to whether it will have a committee system, the right to call people before it to give evidence or the right to hold inquiries. It seems to me a very different body from what we understood he was proposing. This flows from the fact that the Government has not proceeded with its legislation for self-government. It has been stated often before in this place that the Government has a very clear commitment to self-government for the Territory. It has been a plank of its political platform for some considerable time and certainly was integral to its 1983 House of Assembly election campaign. Somehow it all went away. The Minister refers to the fact that the Opposition and the Australian Democrats blocked the Government's self-government legislation in this place. That, of course, is not true. The Government did not bring it in for debate. It might have been amended in a totally satisfactory way. Who knows? Now we will get this Advisory Council which, as I said, is quite different from what one imagined when the Minister announced it some months ago. One would not question his right to have some advisers, but I think this proposal is going somewhat further and is certainly more expensive. We are entitled to the financial statement that we were told would accompany all legislation and ordinances, but we do not have it. Before it is debated as an ordinance in this place, I think we are entitled to have that information as to exactly what the Government intends to allocate towards the cost of supporting this body. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.26) —I support very strongly the comments made about the Advisory Council Ordinance 1986 by my colleague Senator Reid. It surprises and disappoints me. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) had mentioned to me that he was not going on with the self-government proposals. I might say, as everyone in the Senate has said repeatedly, that the Senate has not rejected the self-government proposals; it has not had the opportunity to debate them. As Senator Reid said, who knows what might have come out of that? The Government, of its own volition, has refused to bring on those Bills for debate in the Senate. Instead, the Minister told me that he intended to appoint a small advisory council to assist him. I must admit that when he said that I had no objection to the Minister wanting some council or some committee consisting of local people to assist him with decisions in the Australian Capital Territory. I could not see anything wrong with it. When we look at this Ordinance we see that it really is a farce because in effect the Minister is setting up as an advisory council the same sort of body as the former House of Assembly which the Minister has refused to have re-elected. It is to be a council of 13. It is to have a president, so I presume that it will form some sort of a formal body. I see that it is to determine the procedure of meetings of the council. The Ordinance provides for a quorum to be present. What sort of an advisory council are we talking about? We are not talking about a group of people who will advise the Minister as to various problems which he might have and suggest to him various solutions, which was what was proposed. By bringing in this Ordinance, the Minister has in effect determined that the Australian Capital Territory will have a body which will behave as if it were an elected body, with a president, councillors debating issues and minutes recorded; no doubt it will have to have a clerk and staff to advise it. In effect, he is re-establishing the House with which he has decided not to continue; but instead of the members being elected they will be appointed. If one can accept the apparent decision of the Australian Labor Party in the Australian Capital Territory, which was made over the weekend, they will not be members of the ALP because any such members will be dealt with if they become members of this body. I really do not understand what the Minister is on about. In this Ordinance he has determined that these people will be paid allowances as are prescribed by, one would think, some form of regulation or, alternatively, determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. So these people may very well be well paid for this job. I would have thought that they would be paid some minor honorarium for being advisers to the Minister, but apparently they are going to have much more important tasks imposed upon them. We recognise that the most important clause is clause 11, which states: The President shall, on behalf of the Minister, perform such civic functions as the Minister directs. We all know what has happened in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister is being inundated with civic functions which he cannot possibly fulfil and so he is looking for some mayor, president or someone to take that burden from him. I can understand that he was seeking that sort of relief, but the relief which he has come up with by way of an advisory council in accordance with these regulations is, in my view, a farce. Undoubtedly the Opposition parties will have to give very serious consideration to this proposal. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I want to make some points on this report from the Department of Community Services. It is under the name of Senator the Honourable D. J. Grimes. It may be that we will not have an occasion hereafter to speak to a report with that heading on it. I take this occasion to pay tribute to the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) for his outstanding service to this chamber, to Parliament and to the country. Because of a fortunate fall of circumstances I was recently in Paris. I came up from the underground and beheld a statue of Georges Jacques Danton with his right arm cast to the sky. He was leaning forward expressing all the forensic ability for which he was famous. Comparison is to be drawn between Donald James Grimes and Georges Jacques Danton. Both are known for passion in the causes they adopted, for compassion for the people, for their wit. All these qualities they disciplined with a sense of the practical, of what politically was possible. I trust the fate that befell Georges Jacques does not befall the Minister. Certainly it is right and proper to note the great service the Minister has given to this Parliament and to Australia. I turn to the question of rehabilitation services mentioned in this report. There has been a trend, indeed a very happy trend, with community services-not only with community services, but also in medicine and in the area of compensation-for employers to get people back to work if at all possible. Rehabilitation services up till now have been directed not so much to vocational rehabilitation as to medical rehabilitation, which has not always been apt. When we look at the question of rehabilitation in the context of community services, it is probably well to keep in mind that rehabilitation is best done through the work place. In other words, employment ought to be found for people in a real and productive situation. We can train people in sheltered workshops and in areas where they are protected, but that is often not the best way of rehabilitating them for normal employment. The other thing I wanted to mention in this context is chapter 8, which talks about administrative law. It sets out in a clear manner the various ways people can look to protection from administrative decisions, from decisions of the Executive. On page 94 it refers to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. It is proper that those structures, those instruments to protect the citizens from government, are maintained, and, indeed, strengthened. It is good to see in this report on community services-those services which are devoted to, perhaps, the most deprived and the weakest in terms of power in the community-that great prominence is given to these instruments which can protect not only the more powerful but also the less powerful from the ravages of administration, the ravages of the people who sit in place to administer us. I had better put that in proper context here. I am not saying that those who administer the Commonwealth and the States do not do an outstanding job, but at times they do transgress. It is good to see these instruments in place to protect us from that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(5.36) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Trade Practices Commission, in its annual report 1985-86, has some very interesting things to say on amendments to the Trade Practices Act, particularly in relation to mergers and to section 50. The Senate will, no doubt, recall that this particular section of the Trade Practices Act was hotly debated in the Senate, for the very simple reason that the Government rammed through the Parliament changes to this critical section 50 of the Act at a time when the legality of the Holmes a Court takeover of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd was taking place. Admittedly, the Government had moved that section 50 be amended in the lower House, but in view of the fact that the Government did not have control of the Senate and in view of the fact that the takeover had taken place before the amendments could pass the Parliament, the reasonable thing for the Government to have done was to allow the takeover bid for BHP by Holmes a Court to proceed under the existing law. The fact that the Government failed to do this can only be considered, I believe, as complicity by the Government with one of the parties in the takeover bid. The Commission's 1985-86 report states: . . . it should be recorded that the Commission considered that the national character of B.H.P., and its significance not only in market competition terms but in overall economic matters, raised issues not present in any case which prior thereto . . . the Commission had not moved against takeovers involving a bare transfer of dominant market power, the dominant target firms involved had possessed the relevant degree of power only in a single State and the acquisitions had limited (if any) significance in national terms. The Commission's view as to the special nature of the Bell Resources B.H.P. case was supported by the Federal Court when, in the course of hearing the Commission's application for a restraining order, the Honourable Mr Justice Smithers said: As the law presently stands it seems to me that in transactions of this kind, the public interest is intimately involved, and when you think of the size of B.H.P., its assets and employees that notion is of course confirmed. So both the Federal Court and the Trade Practices Commission had the view that this takeover had very serious implications for the whole of the Australian economy and clearly signalled to the Government that consideration should at least be given to a public detriment inquiry. As the Government has shown no interest in forcing an inquiry, the problems in relation to the ownership of Australia's largest company remain. They have not yet been satisfactorily resolved and I think it is fair to say that at this time there is not even an open market in BHP shares without some considerable degree of uncertainty. The Democrats would like to see legislation introduced giving the Commission the power to introduce public interest inquiries into any takeover it thinks warrants such an inquiry. I believe that the whole sorry story of the BHP takeover bid, a story that is still with us, is one of the less happy episodes of Australian politics and one which brings no credit whatsoever on the Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.41) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report of the Parole Board of the Australian Capital Territory refers in part to some of the parole difficulties experienced in the Territory. One problem was highlighted earlier this year in a case that came first before the Federal Court of Australia and then before the High Court of Australia which led to an article in the Canberra Times containing a comment of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby. The article states: ACT prisoners in NSW gaols are not entitled to the generous remissions granted to NSW prisoners, the High Court ruled yesterday, but the Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, reacted immediately to ensure that ACT prisoners will be no worse off as a result. Of course none of this is in any way a criticism of the Parole Board. As I have said, it has dealt with this problem of Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales prisoners in the same prison being treated differently. I have not yet seen the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, but the second reading speech in another place indicated that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has moved to correct these provisions, and hopefully that will mean that these problems will no longer persist. It does seem that we are moving in the right direction and that Australian Capital Territory prisoners will not be dealt with differently. These people may be in gaol for similar offences, so this is an important matter, given that the Australian Capital Territory goes not have a gaol. Perhaps that is another situation that the Territory needs to address, but so far that has not had a great deal of popular support. I welcome the report and the fact that the Parole Board has referred to the difficulties experienced. I am glad to note that the Attorney-General has moved to correct the situation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(5.44) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. There is no mention in the report of the Australian Bicentennial Authority of any soil conservation project in Australia. This is a subject close to my heart and something that is very important to the agricultural communities of Australia. I suggest that the Bicentennial Authority look at promoting over the whole of Australia a soil conservation awareness program. The Authority would not have to spend a lot of money on it and it would be for the benefit of all Australians. I hope that the Authority can do something about our awareness of soil conservation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Assent to the following Bills reported: Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill 1986 Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1986 Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1986 Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1986 Sales Tax Acts Amendment Bill 1986 Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Bill 1986 Intelligence and Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I give notice that, eight sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Radiation (Amendment) Ordinance 1986, contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 50 of 1986, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. This is the last day on which notice of a motion to disallow can be given. Certain people have raised matters they wish to take up with the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) and I have given notice of this motion of disallowance to give an opportunity for the matter to be looked into more fully. Senator HARRADINE(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. Motion (by Senator Sheil for Senator Messner) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2 standing in Senator Messner's name for this day, for the reference of certain matters to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations be postponed until the next day of sitting. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.48) —On behalf of the Opposition, I move: That the Kakadu National Park Plan of Management, prepared under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, and laid before the Senate on 18 September 1986, be disallowed. It gives me no pleasure to move this motion. There has been a bipartisan approach to the Kakadu National Park. It has been recognised by all the major political parties in Australia as one of the major parks in this nation. It was the Fraser-Anthony Government that recognised Kakadu as a national park and had it listed in 1979. However, Opposition speakers will be pointing out various aspects of the plan and why we believe the plan is deficient and should not be proceeded with. It is a plan that has been prepared by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and obviously acceded to by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who has not been prepared to take the necessary decisions to see that the Kakadu National Park goes ahead in the way originally set down and as laid down by the original plan of management. In 1979, as I have indicated, the Fraser-Anthony Government declared stage 1 of Kakadu National Park. That covered an area of 6,144 square kilometres. In 1981 stage 1 was placed on the World Heritage List and in 1984 the Hawke Government declared stage 2, and declared its intention to list it also on the World Heritage List. Stage 2 was an area of 6,929 kilometres. Stages 1 and 2 gave a total area of 13,073 square kilometres, or, to get it into perspective, about five times the area of the Australian Capital Territory. Just this year, in conjunction with the plan of management, it was announced that stage 3 is to be declared. Stage 3 is a further 6,726 square kilometres, giving a total area for the Kakadu National Park stages 1, 2 and 3 of 19,799 square kilometres, or an area eight times that of the Australian Capital Territory. I suppose that national parks can mean all things to all people. But definitions are set down. Indeed on page 1 of the plan of management, the concept of a national park is put down in a definition which was arrived at by the General Assembly of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in New Delhi in 1961. It states: A national park is a relatively large area set aside for its features of predominantly unspoilt natural landscape, flora and fauna, permanently dedicated for public enjoyment, education and inspiration and protected from all interference other than essential management practices, so that its natural attributes are preserved. I have no quarrel with that definition. In line with that, I suggest that we declare national parks for four main reasons: Firstly, to preserve as widely as possible the genetic pool of our flora and fauna; secondly, to preserve for aesthetic reasons locations of unique natural beauty; thirdly, to preserve for posterity areas of historical and cultural significance; and, fourthly, for recreational purposes. When we put those definitions together and we start to look at the Kakadu National Park, we start to see why certain areas are preserved. I put it to the Senate that three main areas are involved: The wetlands, the escarpment and the Aboriginal rock galleries. Around those areas is a fairly large buffer area. There should not be any quarrel with the fact that in Kakadu we are trying to preserve the wetlands, the escarpment and the Aboriginal rock galleries. I referred to buffer areas. Interestingly, when the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was brought in in 1975 it referred to conservation zones. From my layman's reading of the Act, with all of the legal gobbledegook that we get used to, conservation zones or buffer areas, as I referred to them, are one and the same thing. Interestingly, sub-section 8 (a) of that Act states: In addition to the powers to make regulations conferred by sub-section (6) and section 71, regulations in relation to conservation zones may be made- (a) making provision for and in relation to operations for the recovery of minerals; That is quite significant when one sees what has happened in this second plan of management and how the exploration for and recovery of minerals has been almost totally excluded in stages 1 and 2. In stages 1 and 2, the significant areas that I mentioned would account for approximately 35 per cent of the total area of the park, or about one-third of it. The buffer areas or conservation zones represent about 65 per cent or a little under two-thirds of the total area. When stage 3 is added, the areas of significance come down to considerably less a percentage of the total area; I have even heard a figure of about 10 per cent. So when stage 3 is declared about 90 per cent of that area will be termed buffer area or conservation zone. The argument then gets down to how those buffer areas should be used. Let me say right here and now for everybody who follows in this debate that we are not debating the areas of significance. We are not debating the wetlands. We are not debating the escarpment. We are not debating the Aboriginal rock galleries. For the purposes of this debate they are sacrosanct. What we are talking about is how the buffer zones should be used in the future. When one draws up a national park such as Kakadu, when one must recognise the areas of significance and the buffer zones, the boundaries become somewhat arbitrary. They are basically in the minds of those who draw them up at the time. Areas of one or two square kilometres, or even 40 or 50 square kilometres, provided they are outside the areas of significance, do not make such a heck of a lot of difference. So our argument is that those areas inside the buffer zone should be available for multipurpose use, as indeed they were under the first plan of management. Quite often, those buffer areas are not normally of great concern. But in this instance there are a large number of minerals in that area. It is a very great mineral province. The second Fox report, at page 289 under the sub-title `Mining', states: Gold in significant quantities is associated with the uranium ore body at Jabiluka. Other minerals, including copper, silver, lead, nickel, cobalt and zinc, have been reported in the region and several leases for these have been granted. As I have said, the concept of the use of this buffer area, which probably normally would not be of great concern, takes on a whole new meaning. Indeed, one could be quite cynical about why these boundaries have been drawn and why there is such a large buffer area around the areas of significance. A question was asked in the House of Representatives on Friday when it was found that the Opposition had moved for this disallowance. Mr Cohen, in what has now become known in such a short time as his Swiss cheese answer, had a few things to say. I must say that it is nice to see the Minister so concerned. It is a pity that he was not so concerned when for months picketers breached all the regulations and laws under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act in that area. They camped where nobody else would have been allowed to camp, breaking down some of the flora and obviously disturbing the fauna. It is quite significant that the Minister now shows great concern. I do not quarrel with that except that he seems to be rather compliant with the wishes of the National Parks and Wildlife Service now but not too long ago he was prepared to overlook the illegal camping by picketers at the Mudginberri meatworks. Anyway, Minister Cohen said in his answer: The simple fact is that there are very delicate wetlands in that area-and almost all the uranium prospectivity is in the wetlands. My information is that very little of the uranium prospectivity is in the wetlands area. There is certainly some there but, having talked with a mining company just recently, it appears there are a considerable number of areas of prospectivity outside the wetlands areas. Let us remember what Minister Cohen said. It is quite interesting to read page 290 of the second Fox report under the sub-heading `Mining'. The second paragraph states: The evidence indicates that the Magela Basin includes a good sample of the wetlands of the Northern Territory, but is inferior to many other areas in this respect. For example, the swamplands in which magpie geese congregate for nesting are small in extent compared with others elsewhere. Disturbance by buffaloes has been greater in the Magela system than in the flood plains west of the Stuart Highway. Hence, if any wetland area is to be placed at risk, we believe the evidence leads to the choice of the Magela. Minister Cohen, if he read that some time ago, has obviously forgotten about it or conveniently forgotten about it. Interestingly, at a hearing of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on 3 October, Professor Ovington, who is the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, commented that an inventory should be made. On page 2193 of the draft transcript, Senator Townley asked: Do you agree that the mineral potential of the Kakadu area is not known? Professor Ovington replied: Yes. There are all kinds of potentials. You have a potential to grow bananas at the South Pole if you are willing to put the money into it. Of course, for any stretch of land people can talk about potentials. The point we make is that there has been considerable opportunity for exploration within this region. It has been under investigation for some time. We believe, and what we suggest, is, that there is a need for some kind of an inventory, which could lead to exploration at some time in the future if that was seen to be desirable. What we really need is this broader basic inventory. I repeat those last words: What we really need is this broader basic inventory. As I said, that quotation was from the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in reply to a question put by Senator Townley. How do we get such an inventory? One had a better chance of getting such an inventory a little while ago under the first plan of management, but there is no chance under the second plan of management. It is not ludicrous for the Director to say in that instance that there should be an inventory. That is something with which we would all agree. It is absolutely crazy to lock up an area that big, an area which is known to be one of the greatest mineral provinces in this nation, without knowing what one is locking up. The use of those resources, of course, is another argument to be dealt with at a later time. But to lock up an area that we know has some of the greatest mineral deposits in this nation while not knowing precisely what is there is an act of absolute folly. We have Professor Ovington saying that we should have an inventory and then in the next breath bringing in a plan of management which precludes everybody from finding out what is there. On 20 August last an interim consultative committee delivered a final report on a national conservation strategy for Australia. This committee comprised members from the States, conservation groups, the Federal Government and industry groups. What emerged from the final report was a strategy based on a balance between the needs of development and the needs of conservation and their mutual dependence. The following quotation illustrates what I mean: Conservation and development are fundamentally linked by their dependence on living resources. Both conservation and sustainable development require an attitude of stewardship, especially towards those plants, animals and micro-organisms and the non-living resources on which they depend, that could be destroyed if only short term interests are pursued. To provide for today's needs as well as to conserve the stock of living resources from tomorrow, both conservation and development are necessary. The report goes on to give definitions of `conservation' and `development' which bear repeating in part. `Conservation' is defined as: the management of the human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations. `Development' is defined as: the modification of the biosphere and the application of human, financial, living and non-living resources to satisfy human needs and improve the quality of human life. Following the definitions as laid down in our national strategy leads one to suggest that this plan that we are debating today does not follow the national conservation strategy's concept of a balance between conservation and development. In other words, it is defective; it is not a genuine, multi-use document. Quite often when talking about areas of great significance and national parks one hears used the terms `natural', `unique', `pristine', `primeval' and all the rest of it. I quote Professor Ovington on the use, or really the abuse, of this term `pristine'. These very interesting remarks appear on page 2247 of the draft Hansard: People talk about pristine or primeval places in this world. As an ecologist of 40 years standing I claim that this is a myth: There are not really untouched places in this world . . . Everywhere in the world you have some degree of human interference, but it varies in intensity. People forget that Kakadu has been managed as a land area by Aboriginals for perhaps 40,000 years. Their impact is there. But in assessing the value of the area you assess it for what it is, not with some kind of concept of pristineness. I think that is a quotation that should be well remembered by those people who want to take part in this debate and those people who look at our national parks as something that can be locked away and never touched again. Senator Sanders —Did the Aborigines make the water radioactive? Of course not. Senator COLLARD —No, the Aborigines did not make the water radioactive, Senator Sanders. Indeed, I am very pleased that the honourable senator has brought that up, because the water there has been radioactive for thousands of millions of years. There is naturally occurring uranium there. If Senator Sanders cares to check this out he will find that the water there has been radioactive for thousands of millions of years, even before the Aborigines came. That is a fact that is acknowledged by everybody, including the reasonable conservationists. Senator Sanders —Reasonable! The ones who work for Geopeko. Senator COLLARD —Obviously Senator Sanders is not reasonable, as can be seen from his remarks. His turn is coming. Man does have an impact on the environment, whether he likes it or not, wherever he goes. Our roads, our homes and our public buildings can so easily destroy an attractive and natural environment. Indeed, they have done this. Yet we seem to accept that. We do not see the people living in the cities wanting to do away with their benefits because what was once there has been destroyed. So there is an impact, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. But I think it is fair to say that, particularly in the last half century, we have learned greatly that we can live within our environment and do less destruction than we have been doing in times past and still reap the benefits of the better standard of living that we require in the twentieth century. A mine in an area such as this is but a speck in the vastness of our country. We are fortunate in that we travel a lot, but many people do not understand just how vast this nation of ours really is and that a mine is but a speck. If all the known mineral deposits in Kakadu were to be mined it would affect an area of less than one per cent of the total area of stages 1, 2 and 3. So we are looking at but a small speck in the total area of stages 1, 2 and 3, let alone in the vastness of this country of ours. It is also but a small speck in time. I have a relative who is a bus driver. He took a group of students with a lecturer from one of the universities in Brisbane to Fraser Island. As they were driving along the beach the lecturer, who was rightly going through all the attributes of Fraser Island, was saying: `Look at what would happen. Look at this wonderful foreshore. Imagine how it would be destroyed if the sand miners were allowed in here'. My relative pointed out to him that that area had been mined less than 10 years before. Interestingly, that lecturer never spoke to my bus driver relative from that time onwards. But so it is that a mine is but a speck in the vastness of our country and also a speck in time. People think that an area can be preserved like a picture frame, as if we could take a snapshot of it now and capture how it has always been and expect it to be that way for eternity. It is really a ridiculous supposition when one thinks of it. But that is the way a lot of people, unfortunately, think things are and should be. Man does have an effect on the environment, for better or for worse, and we cannot get away from that. What we have to do is learn to minimise that effect. It is a noble gesture to try to minimise that effect and one with which I have no argument. But, at the end of the day, governments have a responsibility. They have to take into consideration the environment and the need to preserve it as closely as possible. But the political parties have to take decisions because we also have to provide food and fibre and we have to provide jobs for the citizens of this country. So I suggest to the Senate that the challenge before us is not to lock away areas completely, because that is not going to protect them anyhow. The challenge before us in the twentieth century is to provide for food and fibre and to provide jobs. But at the same time we have to manage the environment so that the impact on it is as minimal as possible. That is the challenge for us, and it is the challenge that the Opposition is prepared to meet and wants to meet. Because this plan of management does not meet that challenge, we have moved this motion to disallow the plan and thus reject it. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(6.10) —I rise to oppose the motion moved by Senator Collard. I think that the Opposition, instead of moving a motion of disallowance, should congratulate Professor Ovington and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service on an outstanding document which meets many of the requirements mentioned by Senator Collard in his speech. Later speakers no doubt will respond to Senator Collard's remarks, but I would make the point that he claimed that there was no inventory in the plan. I refer him to page 28 of the report, which no doubt he has read carefully, where it says under `Objectives': to develop an inventory of all renewable and non-renewable resources in the Park-- This is the very matter that he claimed was not done. Also on page 153 the report states in relation to jobs to be done, `survey and inventory of natural features'. I shall leave further discussion of Senator Collard's comments to later speakers. However, I do remind the Senate that we are talking about stages 1 and 2 and would not want to confuse the issue by mentioning stage 3 at this time. I draw attention to the fact that the plan of management we have in front of us today was devised after consultation with groups involved. This point needs to be made because there has been some criticism outside this place that this matter has been rushed through and that it is an Ovington job in which nobody else has had a hand. I remind the Senate that public notices appeared, as they always do in these matters, in May 1984 inviting submissions. Some 26 submissions were received and considered by the group. There were wide consultations within the Northern Territory and outside. The formal consultations included consultations with groups such as the Kakadu Interest Groups Advisory Committee and the Consultative Committee of Traditional Owners. There was informal discussion of various sorts, including two major seminars, one in Darwin in September 1984 and one in Jabiru in 1985. This was to allow the public to listen to speakers, to have the details of the draft plan explained to them, and to have public discussion on the concept of the plan and on the way it might develop. The plan was then published in June 1986 to allow further representation and 74 further representations were received from interested groups. On the basis of these further representations the plan was revised and presented to the Minister along with the 74 representations, so that the Minister would have at his disposal all the material that had come in from the various groups with an interest. This is the document we have before us which is now open for debate in both places. I am glad that Senator Collard reminded us of the definition of `park' when he referred to the General Assembly of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources which, as he told us, met in New Delhi in 1961. He quoted the definition, but I believe it is worthwhile quoting it again because we have to keep clearly in our minds what we are talking about in relation to a park: A national park is a relatively large area set aside for its features of predominantly unspoiled natural landscape, flora and fauna permanently dedicated for public enjoyment, education and inspiration and protected from all interference . . . I think that is the key element which was not emphasised when Senator Collard cited the definition. It goes on as he indicated: . . . other than essential management practices, so that its natural attributes are preserved. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources went on to talk about management objectives. Once again this is worth reading because we will have to think of the objectives which Professor Ovington had in front of him when this plan was produced. I quote from the document: . . . call for the protection of natural and scenic areas of national or international significance for scientific, educational and recreational use. The area should perpetuate in a natural state representative samples of physiographic regions, biotic communities and genetic resources and species in danger of extinction to provide ecological stability and diversity. The Act itself sets out in section 11 (8) the objects under which it works. I shall not read out those provisions but would commend them for study by all those who intend to speak and who will debate the matter this evening. It is unfortunate, as in so many cases with an emotive issue such as this, that there has been a campaign of media disinformation. Completely misleading statements have been made about mineral deposits and economic potential. I should like to put forward three examples. The first I take from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Hatton, who said: There are a dozen Coronation Hills, in the $34 billion in known reserves in Kakadu, and many of them will now be locked up in world heritage area for ever. Let us examine that statement and take the most recent data I could get from the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, his own department, which says firstly that there is less than 3 per cent of this $34 billion in Kakadu-less than 3 per cent. It says also that there is nothing like a dozen Coronation Hills and indeed that there are no other Coronation Hill type deposits in Kakadu, and-this is very important relating back to what Senator Collard said-only one deposit is in the area to be nominated a World Heritage area, and that particular deposit is not gold. Lawrie McIntosh of the Australian Mining Industry Council has said: The known reserves in the Kakadu area are uranium (356,000 tonnes), gold (390,000 ounces), zinc (150,000 tonnes), Kakadu is one of the most mineral rich deposits in the world. Again, looking at the figures supplied by the Department of Mines and Energy, of the 356,000 tonnes of uranium, 346,000 tonnes are outside the park-only 10,000 tonnes within it; of the 390,000 ounces of gold, 390,000 ounces are outside the park; of the 150,000 tonnes of zinc, 150,000 tonnes are outside the park. I use the figures from the Department of Mines and Energy for the Northern Territory. Paul Everingham, the member for the Northern Territory, said: . . . proven uranium reserves in stages 2 of Kakadu National Park could pay all Australia's national debt and leave $8 billion in change . . . the area is probably the richest piece of real estate in the world. Uranium reserves have been identified as equal to energy reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait . . . lies and deceit are very much part of the Kakadu story. Well, there is certainly one aspect of that statement by the honourable member for the Northern Territory with which I would agree, and it is in the latter part of the quotation. However, let us look again at the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy, which states that the total value of known uranium reserves in stage 2 is less than one billion dollars. That is a fair amount of money but a lot less than that suggested by Mr Everingham. Again this is more misinformation put out to mislead and provoke emotive debate. Senator Collard in his contribution spoke of the three main areas, the wetlands, the escarpment and the Aboriginal galleries, and committed himself by saying that he would support no interference with those. On the AM program this morning he spoke of other areas. He did not call them buffer zones but mongrel scrub, and said that they were useless areas of the park. Let us look to see whether the mongrel scrub referred to by Senator Collard is useless or part of the park. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation study, a long term study that went on for five years, said that this area referred to as useless is rich in terms of flora and fauna. It said that the woodlands were extremely diverse and an integral part of the ecological makeup of the park. Some would like to suggest that the mining potential in the park is in the mongrel scrub-in the useless bits-and not in the area that Senator Collard is so keen about-the wetlands, the escarpment and the galleries. But of course, this is not the case. Most of the potential is on the flood plains or the flood plain margins. To date, experience has demonstrated that we are still not able to cope with the problems of mining in the flood plain or on the flood plain margins. We certainly do not have the foolproof system that we will need if we are to meet the requirements that even Senator Collard has mentioned. The known mineral deposits are outside the park. The work done by the Bureau of Mineral Resources in the Northern Territory shows that there is great potential, even outside stage 3. There is a general feeling in the Northern Territory that the mining companies are working very hard to ensure that they get access to stage 3 because they know that eventually they will be able to go outside that stage. The 14 mineral leases, of which we have been reading so much in the papers in recent days and which are subject to court action, are each approximately 40 acres. I understand from experts in the field that the 40 acres would not be sufficient so there would need to be either aggregation or extension. Aggregation is possible in one area-up to six of these leases could be combined. I am not sure whether that will be sufficient for a mining area, but I am sure of one point and that is that extension of any lease under this Government is highly unlikely. I suggest that the mining companies concentrate their activities outside the park. Kakadu has been described in this way: . . . unrivalled combination of spectacular and varied scenery; diversity of native plants and animals; and a wealth of Aborginal art. A place of national and international significance. It is not surprising that the tourism industry is developing in the Northern Territory. Over the past few years there has been a 30 per cent annual increase in the number of tourists, and that is what the plan is all about. It is meeting the objectives set out by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and those set out in the Act. It is developing a multipurpose situation with the emphasis on tourist development. The motion by Senator Collard would deny the tourists the experience and would deny the Northern Territory the money that would flow from that. One aspect of the plan causes me some concern and that is the professional fishing of barramundi. I wish to read part of a letter from the Northern Territory Commercial Fishermen's Association to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. The letter is signed by the chairman of that organisation, Mr Mundy. The letter relates to crocodiles and barramundi and I shall read only a small section which gives some of the reasons why professional fishing should be allowed in the park. It says: 2. Barramundi- (a) This industry has been active for over 100 years although the majority of exploitation has occurred over the last 20 years. (b) The annual value of the Northern Territory Barramundi industry is around $2m and although this appears to be a small figure, if one looks at the tourist industry where people visiting the Territory want to eat wild caught Barramundi the value to the Territory cannot be calculated. Because of this, if the industry was to gradually die the effects would be far reaching. (c) The Barramundi industry is currently under strict management control- (i) Licences have been decreased from well over 100 to the equivalent of 35 full licences. (ii) The amount of net allowed per fisherman has been decreased from unlimited to 1,000 metres. (iii) Fishing during the breeding season, October to February has been banned. The effect of this is that the amount of effort applied to the resource can no longer put fish or crocodile populations in danger. (d) The areas fished by professionals in Kakadu is relatively small, which can be confirmed by consulting a chart and would have minimal effect on overall park management. (e) A.N.P.W.S. seems to ignore Justice Fox's recommendation in the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry report when it was recommended that commercial fishing should be allowed to continue and be restricted to the areas currently permitted. Since the Fox report potential effort is only about one fifth of what was available at that stage which makes a closure of the park to barramundi fishermen ludicrous. I read that because of the interest shown by commercial fishermen in the Northern Territory in their own industry. I note that the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources will visit the Northern Territory again next week and will hear further representations from the Northern Territory Commercial Fishermen's Association. The Committee will make recommendations in due course. Perhaps under those circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the matter here. It is most important to finish on the note that Kakadu's delicate ecosystems must not be violated, and the plan before us, which the motion seeks to disallow, ensures long term viability of this marvellous World Heritage site. In speaking of World Heritage, I wish to read one paragraph from the Press statement put out jointly by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment. It says in paragraph 3: The World Heritage List identifies areas of ``outstanding universal value'', the disappearance or destruction of which would constitute a ``harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all nations of the world''. Stage II of Kakadu National Park will be a fitting addition to the World Heritage List. It includes wetlands of major international significance, mangroves of great scientific interest and extensive archaeological and rock art sites. I urge senators to reject the disallowance motion and so keep Kakadu clean, unspoiled and worthy of inclusion on the World Heritage List. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(6.27) —The Australian Democrats do not support the motion. We do not believe that the management plan should be disallowed, even though it is deficient in some areas which we will mention. However, we believe that it should be strengthened rather than weakened and it certainly should not be thrown out. Senator Collard made a plea. He clothed it in reasonable terms, but really he is asking for open slather for his buddies in the New Right. He is pandering to those people; he wants to become the leader of the parliamentary wing of the New Right. The New Right wants to subjugate the entire work force of Australia. When it gets the work force working for 20c a day and the return of child labour and all the things that existed 100 years ago, then it will start digging up the front lawn of Parliament House. The New Right wants to dig up every patch of land in Australia. Senator Collard is attempting to do so himself. He says that mining is only a small speck in the vastness of our country and a small speck in the vastness of a national park. Perhaps it is a small speck, but what does a uranium mine look like to a tourist or someone who appreciates wilderness in a national park? For example, take a fine Beethoven recording, put one small scratch across that record and the whole thing is ruined. Having a uranium mine in a national park is ludicrous and having any more mines is unthinkable. Yet it is what Senator Collard wants, as do his Party and the Opposition in general. The Liberals go along with it; we have umpteen speakers on this matter and I am sure the Liberals will heap praise on the New Right and jump on the bandwagon because they too want open slather on every patch of land in Australia. They do not want any preserved for the people for the future. Senator Collard talks about buffer zones. He says that these only consist of mongrel scrub so why not mine them in the national park. But it is a national park! He simply does not understand the concept of a national park-something that is to be preserved in its entirety in perpetuity. One cannot just separate a patch and say `This is mongrel scrub, we will mine this, but we will not mine other parts'. It is all the national park; it has boundaries. Those boundaries are not capricious, they have been set up to take account of the nature of Kakadu, the precious environment that it is and the entire ecosystem it comprises. The national parks in Australia have had a very chequered history. We finally do have a massive national park and that is Kakadu. Most of the national parks of this country are not national parks at all; they are State preserves. They are called national parks but they can be eliminated very easily and quickly with the stroke of a pen. We must cherish and preserve our true national parks, because they are endangered. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator SANDERS —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was pointing out that the National Party of Australia has been acting as the cutting edge for the New Right in its drive to get more and more access to what we hold dear in Australia. Senator Collard was the mover of the motion. I am reliably informed that his family brought forth to this country Collard's curse, the kikuyu grass, pennisetum clandestinum; so perhaps the idea of environmental utilisation, degradation and change runs in his genes. Senator Kilgariff —I think Senator Collard from north Queensland is a very respected person. Why don't you get on with your talk? How long have you been in Australia? Senator SANDERS —I am talking about Collard's curse, the kikuyu grass. National parks should not be taken lightly in Australia. The New Right wants access to all national parks. Australia should be proud of its national parks because national parks actually started here in Australia. The first national park in the world was formed in 1879 when the term `national park' was applied to the Royal National Park near Sydney. America's famous Yellowstone National Park was not so named until a few years later. We were told earlier by Senator Collard that this vast area would be locked up forever and that we should not lock up such a large area. He claimed that all stages of Kakadu National Park would be some 20,000 square kilometres. In fact, the parks of Africa are bigger than this. The parks in Kenya are bigger than all three stages of Kakadu. Kenya and other African countries are countries which we would consider Third World countries; poor, impoverished countries. Those countries are willing to set aside vast areas for national parks, yet we as a highly developed First World nation still want, apparently, according to Senator Collard, to determine what is there, see whether it is valuable, then change the classification so that we can mine it. I would be ashamed of our country if it took that course. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, which was mentioned by Senator Robertson and Senator Collard, set forth standards for national parks and in fact Kakadu is in violation of one of those standards right now. At the Tenth General Assembly of the IUCN in New Delhi in 1969, the IUCN set rule 3, which states that the park should be reserved for specialised inspirational, educational, cultural and/or recreational public use. Yet here we have a uranium mine in a national park. I have been back to the United States and people there have said: `Gee, it sounds like you have a wonderful thing in that Kakadu, but what is a uranium mine doing in the middle of a national park?'. I said: `Frankly, it could only happen in Australia'. It was apparently some trade-off. It was the only way the park could be made. It is ridiculous to have a national park with a uranium mine in it; of all things, a uranium mine which is producing the substance of death. The substance of which wars and nuclear disasters are made is mined in a beautiful wilderness environment such as Kakadu. It makes no sense at all. I am afraid that white Australians-I include myself-simply do not appreciate this land as do the original black Australians, the Aboriginal people. We may love our country, but we simply do not respect the land. Many of the people who came here first came against their will. They came from the northern hemisphere to an alien climate and an alien land. They learned to hate the land and many of them wanted to go back home to England. I am afraid that much of that attitude still exists. It certainly exists with the people of the New Right who simply want to rip off the land and move on. They do not mind what they leave behind; gouging, holes and roads. Sir Mark Oliphant said: . . . the present policies of the Australian Government favour mining, farming and grazing as the sources of our wealth. These are the policies of a colonial government, not those of a proud, independent country. How true it is, how sad it is. The United States National Parks Service has in its enabling legislation a clause which states that the national parks of the United States are areas of notable environmental value and shall be preserved in perpetuity for future generations to enjoy. Yet here in Australia we find that this idea of preservation for future generations is derided by the New Right and the mining industry, which say: `You cannot lock something up forever'. Why not? If it is valuable now, it will be doubly or trebly valuable in the future; so we should lock it up now. Unfortunately we in Australia have the attitude of only making something a national park when the mining industry, loggers or hydro people do not want it. If they say that they do not need that area for anything, we make it into a national park. That is the residual approach and we simply cannot afford that sort of thing. Another viewpoint, which I am sure will be quite alien to the members of the Opposition, including the National Party, is that park areas deserve to exist for the benefit of the species involved, not for tourism, mining or even for the benefit of future generations of people. That is the biocentric view; that plants and animals have a right to exist. Senator Parer —And people. Senator SANDERS —People certainly have a right to exist, but since they have the ability to destroy all other forms of life on earth, they also have a responsibility. In Alaska, where I lived for a number of years when I was a bush pilot, I flew into the Alaskan Eskimo settlements. The Eskimos had such respect for their surroundings that they would actually apologise to an animal before they killed it. They had the awareness that that animal had the right to live. Some Opposition senators are laughing; it is ludicrous to them that anyone could so appreciate his or her environment that he or she would actually apologise to an animal before killing it. But that is what has kept those societies alive for so many thousands of years. This society will not last for that long because we have completely lost touch with the sustaining environment around us. What about the plan of management for Kakadu? I do not support it entirely because it is too development oriented, too tourist oriented, and it takes too little account of the tremendous value of Kakadu. It is an excuse, a compromise document. I am sure that the people who drafted it had a great deal of knowledge of and appreciation for the true value of Kakadu, but they thought that in this society they would have to sell it in terms of its economic value. They did not think that they could sell it in terms of its value as an area, an environment; so they have gone through and put in these plans for management in terms of visitor accommodation, roads and tourist facilities. I am afraid that they have gone far too far. However, they have restricted mineral operations in the plan of management. This is good. I would like to run briefly through my criticisms of the plan of management. Tourism is only one of the uses of the park and it should not be the main reason for its existence. I do not think that any apology has to be made for the rest of the park. It is regrettable that because of the delay in adding stage 3 the plan of management is only for stages 1 and 2. After all, the park is an entity, an entire area, so the plan should be made for all of Kakadu and it should include stage 3. The plan of management should have provision for the traditional Aboriginal owners to be represented on the board of management. This has been done at Uluru, so why could it not be done at Kakadu? The draft plan of management is only reacting to the existing uses. The policy objectives should be clearly outlined in the plan of management. A study is needed of the tourist carrying capacity of the park. Restrictions on numbers of tourists may be necessary. People in the United States of America have found that in wilderness areas-which much of Kakadu is-they have actually had to put in registration lists, sometimes years ahead, for people to go into these areas because they know that the carrying capacity of the land is quite low and that tourists themselves could love the park to death. This may have to be done in parts of Kakadu. The developments for tourists are excessive at the moment. They will encourage vast numbers of tourists to come in who have neither the knowledge nor the ability to survive in the area and it may cause difficulties for their own safety. The matter of accommodation is a vexed one in the park. I feel that all accommodation other than the low impact camping should be sited outside and not inside the park. An environmental impact study should be required on all major developments because this is a very fragile environment. Four-wheel drive vehicles should be strictly controlled. There should be no off-road usage of four-wheel drive vehicles because we know of the damage that they can do to the fragile economy. Senator McKiernan —And motor-bikes. Senator SANDERS —And motor-bikes, certainly. Commercial fishing should cease immediately and recreational fishing should be strictly controlled. There should be no gun clubs at Jabiru and no hunting in the park. A number of workers at Jabiru have guns and it is a problem to the park management that these people go out and shoot the guns in the park. There should be no horse-riding in the park, no further airport development and the wilderness zones need to be declared over extensive areas of the park to limit the access. Feral animals should be eradicated and intensive efforts should be made to eradicate mimosa-the weed that has come in as a result of buffalo grazing in the area. What does the Government say about the area? We have had some statements from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that the Government will not allow any more mining activity in stage 1 and stage 2. We welcome that, but what about stage 3? I wish to quote from an article in Darwin's Northern Territory News of Monday, 13 October 1986, which is headed `More mining: that's the tip'. The article states: Federal Cabinet is moving towards allowing mining to proceed in at least 35 per cent of Kakadu National Park's recently announced Stage 3. Reliable sources in Canberra said today the Federal Government's recent go-ahead for mining at Coronation Hill was expected to be extended to other potential mining regions within Stage 3. Several Cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, are reported to strongly favour more mining going ahead `in the national interest' within the extended Kakadu boundaries. Federal Resources and Energy Minister, Senator Gareth Evans, is known to be among the Ministers who support the Territory Government in its case for mining at least Stage 3. Of course, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) is the man who called this country clapped out buffalo country. This is about equivalent to our Premier of Tasmania calling the Franklin a brown, leech-ridden ditch. Of course, it is not clapped out buffalo country. It has far more value than the Minister for Resources and Energy has implied. When the management plan came up and the New Right prevailed upon Senator Collard to raise this motion, the New Right also sent out a letter. The letter I have is from the Australian Mining Industry Council over the signature of its Executive Director, Lauchlan McIntosh. He wishes me to support Senator Collard and he lists a series of reasons why he wishes me to do so. He states: About 13,000 square kilometres of land with high mineral potential will be locked up; Australia will never know whether there are mineral deposits there that could be mined without adversely affecting the prime function of the Park; This is rubbish. No mining could take place without adversely affecting the prime function of the park. The letter continues: Australia will forgo the economic, employment and other benefits that mining in the Park could bring; Australia will deny itself access to a source of raw materials for export and for use in expanding local secondary industries; Australia will deny Aborigines access to the economic benefits that would flow from exploration and mining on land they own within the Park; Australians will forgo excise, income tax and company taxes, jobs and infrastructure development; So it goes on. What a load of absolute garbage. What about jobs? We have the Robe River dispute. What did Peko-Wallsend do? It sacked 1,100 workers. What about jobs? Peko-Wallsend is saying that it will bring about jobs. As far as it is concerned workers are mere profit fodder. When the workers are no longer valuable to it in some way and when it receives a few cents less in royalty for the minerals and it just does not want to have the workers around any more, they are gone. That is what happens to jobs. What a load of garbage. The letter from the Australian Mining Industry Council mentions `infrastructure development'. The infrastructure development brought about on behalf of the mining industry is what has caused the fiscal demise of this country. Over and over again throughout the last 20 years we, as taxpayers, were told that, if we supported a road, or a railway, or a power plant, these wonderful mining companies would come and put in some sort of development and bring jobs and prosperity to us all. We have blown all our dough on infrastructure. The mining companies are pulling out. They are firing people and they are saying: `It is not economic. We will go overseas'. Senator Parer —They paid for them, be honest. Senator SANDERS —Oh, they have, have they? Why are we in so much trouble financially then? Why is our secondary industry so neg- lected? It is because we poured all our money into infrastructure development for the honourable senator's buddies in the New Right. People on the Opposition side in the National Party of Australia are actually supporting the New Right in all its claims, desires and demands. Why? Senator McKiernan —They are being told what to do. Senator SANDERS —They are being told what to do. Does the honourable senator think they are being bribed? Senator McKiernan —No, I don't think so. Senator SANDERS —I do not think so. I do not think they are smart enough to be bribed. I do not think they actually realise the value of what they are giving away. They are too naive. People overseas, at least in Mexico and America, understand the value of this sort of thing and they say: `Sure, I want about $100,000 under the table to put through a Bill like this or a disallowance motion'. Here they do it simply because they do not know any better. They have no idea of the true value of what they want to give away to the New Right. Senator McKiernan —Leaderless, no leadership. Senator SANDERS —They are leaderless as well. Along with this letter from the Australian Mining Industry Council is a nicely prepared little brochure which is headed `Kakadu-The Case for Conservation and Development'. Do honourable senators think that conservation and development are both possible? I do not. I do not even think that the Australian Mining Industry Council thinks they are possible. It has really stretched a point here. The brochure under the heading `Modern Exploration has Little Impact' states: The mining industry has developed exploration techniques which have extremely little or no impact whatsoever on the land surface. That is an absolute lie. Anyone who has flown across the Simpson Desert would have seen bulldozer tracks transect, mile after mile, across the desert in a grid pattern. They still exist after years and they will always exist. Yet honourable senators talk about the little impact. They have completely changed the ecology of the whole area. It is a very fragile arid ecology. It cannot stand bulldozers wandering around on it. The brochure states further: . . . the impact of much of the normal routine ground work such as geological mapping and the collection of small rock, soil or stream samples is barely perceptible. Later exploration stages such as drilling and trenching do, of course, affect the immediate environment, but they occur on a limited scale only in the target area. What a load of rubbish. If honourable senators doubt this, I urge them simply to take a look at some of the Landsat aerial photography of the area. They will see the impact of mining exploration everywhere but in the national parks and they want to extend it to the national parks. The brochure under the heading `Mining and the Environment are not Incompatible' also states: The industry is used to working under such rules- as were put down in the Kakadu region- It has, over many years, built up a level of skill and ability in managing water quality . . . What a joke. The industry claims that it can manage water quality. It got itself into trouble in the first place through its own stupidity. Senator Grimes —Send them down to Queenstown. Senator SANDERS —We have talked about the mining industry and its environmental sensitivity but look at Queenstown. It has completely denuded Queenstown in Tasmania-my poor, benighted State. It has completely denuded an area of vegetation, not only trees but also vegetation. It looks like the face of the moon. Our highly responsible, environmentally-conscious mining industry did that and it is proud of it. Even today it is proud of it. Talk about the water at Kakadu. At Ranger the industry actually impounded water before it had to and this has caused massive difficulties with discharge. They have had discharges. It has held the Government to ransom over its discharges. It cannot manage water in this area. It is a very high rainfall area, and it simply does not know how to manage it. It says it is expert at rehabilitating mined land and caring for the environment in a manner that is equal to, or better than, any in the world today. That is palpably false; it is simply untrue. Yet we are expected to believe that we can have development in a national park. In the first place, even the roads leading to a development in a national park cause a massive impact not only on the direct environment but also in terms of fire and other impacts that human beings can have. The project itself completely degrades a national park. I have been to Ranger. It has two huge open pit mines, huge tailing dams, a great yellow pile of sulphur and tin sheds. It is an atrocity. Senator Parer —What area does it cover? Senator SANDERS —It does not matter how much area it covers. It is supposed to be an area of wilderness. The honourable senator is obviously quite insensitive-probably insensible as well-if he feels that that is an excuse simply because it is a small thing. It is a visual blot on a landscape which should be pristine. I am afraid that we will have to be classified as a second rate society indeed if we cannot set aside a small section of wilderness in our vast, developed continent so that our children and their children's children can see at first hand what the whole world looked like before the developers, bulldozers, chainsaws and all the rest of the technological marvels destroyed the environmental balance forever. I very strongly oppose this motion. Senator PARER(Queensland)(8.22) —I support Senator Collard in opposing this management plan for Kakadu National Park. I believe that in the society we have today we need a sense of balance. We in the Opposition accept, as do the responsible mining industry, Aborigines and other balanced people, that a number of spectacular and scenic areas which could be called environmentally fragile zones and sites of Aboriginal significance should not be disturbed in Kakadu and that the park itself is justifiably famous for its spectacular escarpment and its wetland area. It should be stated, however, that even at the height of the monsoon season the wetlands cover only about 16 per cent of Kakadu stages 1 and 2. Senator Collard has pointed out that, with the inclusion of stage 2, the total area which would be covered not only by a national park but also by a World Heritage area will be in the order of 13,000 square kilometres, and when stage 3 is declared as a national park that area will cover 20,000 square kilometres which is approximately 100 by 200 kilometres. We have also made it clear that the escarpment, the wetlands and the Aboriginal art areas are not in dispute. We are saying, however, that we should have a management of the region with its various planned uses producing a harmonious relationship between the various activities, whether they be park management, environmental protection, mining or tourism. Good management and good will can lead to natural resources being obtained with a minimum of interference to the region's inhabitants and environment. I will quote from a comment made by a mines Minister from one of the States. He said that his Cabinet endorsed a package of recommendations to take the process of development further in a balanced way. He said that the package is designed to foster multiple land use concepts and ensure that no land is alienated from exploration without careful consideration of the sub-surface mineral or petroleum potential, relevant economic factors and the existing and potential sub-surface rights. That comment was made in a speech by the Minister of Mines from South Australia, Mr Ron Payne, to the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy on 11 September 1986. I think the major problem that has occurred in this whole management plan has been that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has lost all credibility with the Northern Territory Government, the people of the Northern Territory and the Aboriginal people. On 16 September the Federal Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment wrote to the Northern Territory Minister, Mr Coulter, assuring him that the Commonwealth would adhere to agreed guidelines in respect of any proposed listing of Kakadu stage 2. The Council of Nature Conservation Ministers agreement stated that the Northern Territory Government would be consulted. I will quote from a letter of that date to Mr Barry Coulter from the Federal Minister. That letter was received by Mr Coulter on 19 September. In that letter the Federal Minister said: Should the Commonwealth decide to pursue World Heritage listing of the former Stage 2 area, your Government will be consulted in accordance with the CONCOM agreement prior to any approach being made to the World Heritage Secretariat in Paris. The date of that letter was 16 September. On 17 September 1986, the day afterwards, documentation was forwarded to the World Heritage Commission by the Commonwealth nominating Kakadu stage 2 for inclusion in the World Heritage List. This was obviously a deception by the Minister of the Northern Territory Government. There is no way in the world that this proposal could have been sent and that this documentation could have been forwarded if it had not been planned days and perhaps weeks in advance. Yet the very day before that documentation was sent there was a letter from Mr Barry Cohen: . . . your Government will be consulted in accordance with the CONCOM agreement . . . Again, we have the slight differences. It would be useful if we could have a degree of honesty on this matter. At the meeting between Australia and the World Heritage Commission in February 1986 the Commonwealth pointed out-a subtle difference, I know-that it has indicated that it will not take unilateral action to nominate areas of world heritage without the agreement of the State or the Territory concerned. It goes on to say: In the Government's view, such action, if it occurred, would be likely to lead to confrontation with States or Territories which may well do more harm than good in the long run. At another meeting between Australia and the World Heritage Commission in September 1986, a few months later, there was a subtle change of words: The Commonwealth Government has indicated that it will not normally nominate areas for World Heritage listing without the agreement of the State or Territory concerned. What faith, what confidence, can the States and the Territories have in this Government and in this Minister when one day a letter says `don't worry, we will consult you' and the very next day the submission is made to have stage 2 of Kakadu nominated for World Heritage listing? No wonder there is concern within the Northern Territory when this sort of thing happens. The Minister used melodramatic words that would come better from Senator Sanders than Mr Cohen. He referred to the `Swiss cheesing' of Kakadu National Park. He was talking about the exploration of the stage 2 area to determine just what sorts of minerals we have within the ground, and the determination of that wealth, if there is any, to decide the proper and balanced management plan that should be implemented. The Minister uses the emotional phrase of `Swiss cheesing'. I think it is most important that Australians know what we are going to lock up in an area that is not only declared a national park but also proposed to be part of the national heritage. It has been claimed that we are looking at various resources. Let us take, as an example, the Ranger uranium site. The energy produced from Ranger uranium provides fuel for about 30,000 megawatts of power, or about one and a half times Australia's total yearly power requirements. We have a financial crisis in Australia today, probably one of the worst financial crises this country has seen for many years; we have a balance of payments deficit for this year alone of approximately $16 billion to $17 billion; and we have a total foreign debt of over $100 billion. I do not believe that we can just willy-nilly lock up potential areas without even knowing what is there. Once again, we are not debating stage 1, we are not debating the Aboriginal art areas and we are not debating the other sensitive areas within stage 2. We are saying that we should not lock up an area-if this legislation goes through, it will be included on the World Heritage List-of approximately 13,000 square kilometres, and stage 3 will be 20,000 square kilometres, because this country will regret it. I know and honourable senators opposite will know that the move to lock these areas up was not made with the support of the Minister for Resources and Energy Senator Gareth Evans, and probably did not have the support of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It was a knee-jerk reaction caused by some of the more radical people on the Government benches. Senator Zakharov —It was recommended by Fox. Senator PARER —Senator, this was not the idea of Senator Evans; it was not the idea of the Prime Minister. It was something that was foisted upon them. My belief is that this will be to their eternal regret. We are not disagreeing with a proper, balanced management plan. We are disagreeing with some sort of sop to the ilk of Senator Sanders and the sorts of people within the Labor Party who share his viewpoint. I would like to comment on the remarks made by Senator Robertson. He talked about media disinformation, and about uranium amounting to approximately 350,000 tonnes, the majority being outside stage 2. The point is that we do not know what is inside stage 2. The Government is also not consistent. It talks about allowing no mining whatsoever and it excludes Coronation Hill. I am not complaining about the exclusion of Coronation Hill. I am talking about the total inconsistency when the Government says: `We will not allow this, but we will exclude Coronation Hill because we know there are good economic reserves there'. The point I am making is that it is important that we know what other economic reserves are included in stages 2 and 3 of Kakadu. I reaffirm that the Opposition supports Senator Collard's proposals in opposing the management plan laid down by the Government. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(8.35) —I was going to say that it gives me some pleasure to enter the debate tonight, but really I enter this debate with considerable concern. I am the senator for the Northern Territory. Senator Grimes —You are one of the senators. Senator KILGARIFF —Whatever the Minister wishes. I am one of two senators for the Northern Territory. I have lived in the Northern Territory for some 50-odd years. Like very many Territorians, I have spent much of my time in the bush of the Northern Territory. I doubt whether anyone who has accompanied me in my journeys through the bush and followed my life in the Northern Territory could accuse me of wishing to destroy the environment. I believe that the future of my family is in the Northern Territory. If a person believes that his family has a future in the Northern Territory, he must have due regard for its environment, its development, and the betterment of its people. It has many races. Aborigines comprise some 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the population. Non-Aboriginal people are much more extensive. Many people have come to the Northern Territory from many parts of the world. It includes some 75 to 80 nationalities. They look upon the Northern Territory as their future. I am proud to represent them, because I know that I represent their views. I have been through various elections in my political career. I have spent some 12 years in the Senate and some 16 years in the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. Over that period I have not lost an election. By so doing, I believe that I represent the majority viewpoint of the people of the Northern Territory. Fortunately for me, I have had their assistance, acknowledgment and support. I represent the viewpoint of many people. Senator Puplick —You are not being challenged for pre-selection like Senator Robertson is. Senator KILGARIFF —That is quite true, as the honourable senator has said. I am under no pressure whatsoever to win just another election. As I have indicated before, after some 26 or 27 years in parliamentary service it is not my intention to seek re-election; so there is absolutely no pressure on me to do other than speak my mind on behalf of the people. Tonight we are discussing the disallowance of the Kakadu National Park plan of management. Kakadu, like Uluru and the bush of the Northern Territory, is very close to my heart. The debate concerns a vitally important part of Australia, over 20,000 square kilometres of the Northern Territory, which makes up stages 1 and 2 and the proposed stage 3 of Kakadu National Park. The outcome of this debate may well determine the future of an area as big as Wales in Great Britain. Kakadu is far larger than at least 20 of the world's smallest countries. Attempts have been made to reduce the debate on Kakadu to an emotive argument about an unspoilt wilderness, the totality of which is about to be destroyed unless it is absolutely protected from development by tourism, mining, fishing or other commercial interests. The statements of people such as Professor Ovington, who is head of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, that the inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources into the future of Kakadu was not concerned with the national park but with mining in the first area that Australia had put on the World Heritage List, are indicative of the sort of argument put up to justify the stagnation of mining or other industries such as tourism in Kakadu. It may be true that Kakadu was the first area in Australia to be World Heritage listed but we need to consider whether it should have been listed in the first place, or at least whether the area which was listed should have been listed in its entirety. I believe the decision to list this amount of land in the Kakadu area was taken irresponsibly and without due regard to the interests of this nation and particularly to the development of the north and the Northern Territory and its people. There are areas in Kakadu which are absolutely magnificent and unique and which should rightfully be preserved and protected. The fact remains, too, that sections of the area, far from being unspoilt wilderness, are basically scrub. I believe a disservice was done not only to Australia but also to the World Heritage Commission itself when this area was so listed without responsible description. I doubt very much whether the World Heritage Commission would want its credibility brought into question by governments or lobby groups using it as a shield. That is what this Government and the ANPWS are attempting to do. They use this area's place on the World Heritage List to justify their refusal to allow mining to proceed even in areas which are, as I have said, nothing more than scrub. For those people listening tonight who might wonder what scrub is, it is, in the outback of Australia, a hardy growth which survives in a hardy terrain, and it is not necessarily a part of the beautiful escarpment we are discussing tonight. No one is talking about digging up this magnificent escarpment or the other areas which are undoubtedly very beautiful, spectacular and to be preserved. The plan of management for this area should address multiple land use issues and provide guidelines which would facilitate land use within the park in keeping with its status as a park. This plan of management does not do that. To take the most controversial point and the major failing of the plan of management first, the mining provisions are totally inadequate and unacceptable. Paragraph 11.6 of the management plan deals with operations for the recovery of minerals. This very brief paragraph sets out provisions of section 8 (b) of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 which in effect provides that the provisions of the plan of management do not affect any interest in respect of land or minerals on, in or beneath that land, held immediately before the land was declared to be within the park. At sub-paragraph 11.6.3 of the plan the management prescriptions state that the main objective is to protect the park's resources from exploitation and to implement this objective subject to section 8 (b) of the Act. No operations for the recovery of minerals will be carried out in the park. The mining provisions of the plan are therefore deficient in at least three critical aspects. First, they preclude development and exploration of mineral resources not located upon existing leases; secondly, they fail to address conditions to apply to mining on pre-existing leases; and, thirdly, they fail to provide assurances on the protection of existing applications. I shall go into these matters in a little more detail. First, the preclusion of development and exploration upon other than existing leases means that no mineral deposits not located within existing leases in stages 1 and 2 will be able to be developed. It would also prevent further exploration and development of minerals not located within leases within stage 3 once that stage is declared. Obviously it will be declared, as was indicated just a little while ago in an offhand manner. The prospective mineral wealth of the region is such that any decision or action, such as that before us tonight, which could effectively put an end to future resource development is of significant economic consequence to the entire nation. Stages 1 and 2 envelop a vast proportion of the Alligator Rivers region which is recognised as containing a high percentage of the world's most important energy resource, uranium, as well as gold, silver, tin, lead, tungsten, zinc, copper and platinum. Stage 3 is also high prospective for all of these minerals, with Coronation Hill showing great potential for gold and platinum production. The potential mineral riches of Kakadu, if mined, could total from $70,000m to $100,000m on today's values. Coronation Hill is assessed as having gold, platinum and uranium deposits to the value of $5,000m. Passing the plan of management will lock up that mineral wealth at a time when Australia needs every export dollar it can get. This economically irresponsible Federal Government is ready to just shrug off potential export earnings of the magnitude to which I have just referred. Billions of dollars will go down the drain. I say again, as a senator for the Northern Territory, that the protection of the environment that we are aiming for and development of mineral resources can be brought about by a balanced plan of management involving multi-use. If anyone in Australia does not believe me, I suggest that he not listen to some of the debate tonight but go to the Northern Territory and make up his mind as to the future development of Kakadu. As I have said, there is every reason for the multi-use of this land for the benefit of those who love the country, as I do, but who also love to see the Territory and the north develop in their rightful way. But it is not just mineral development on other than existing leases that the plan fails to provide for. Even those prospectors or com- panies which have existing interests in the park are effectively prohibited from exploring or developing those interests because such activity can proceed only in accordance with the guidelines set out in the plan of management. By not including any guidelines such activity is precluded. It means that, as there are no guidelines set down within the plan of management, there is no future for mining in this area. The warehouse of future wealth for Australia cannot be assessed. What fools members of the Government and people are who say that an assessment of this wealth should not be brought about so that we will know what is available to be put into our warehouse. The third issue which arises in relation to the future of mining in Kakadu is: What is to become of those who possess applications, as opposed to leases, over land in the park? The Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Professor Ovington, has foreshadowed a contest over whether existing mining applications would constitute an existing interest and would survive the declaration of the park. Those are legal questions to be assessed and determined. Professor Ovington has suggested that, while it seems clear that leases would be protected, the status of applications would need to be tested before the court. The plan of management before the Senate fails to give any undertaking regarding the protection of those interests, the interests of Australians, the interest of pioneers and the interests of people who are prepared to go out into the bush and give it a go. The holders of these interests include mining companies, many of which spent considerable amounts on exploration prior to 1973 when they were given assurances by Dr Rex Patterson, a Minister in the Whitlam Government. I remember Dr Rex Patterson very well. If ever there was a member of parliament who worked for the development of the north, it was Dr Rex Patterson. He was on the opposite side of politics to me; he was a Minister in the Whitlam Labor Government. I regret very much that Dr Rex Patterson is not in the Parliament of Australia today. He was interested in the development of the north. Dr Rex Patterson said that, if the mining companies surrendered their interests to enable the declaration of the park to proceed, they would be issued with fresh titles to complete their exploration programs following the declaration. This is what happened: Relying on those assurances, the companies surrendered their titles, but to date no fresh title has been issued. Dr Patterson gave that assurance in good faith but he has been let down by his fellow Labor colleagues. To give an idea of just how much money has gone into exploration, I understand that Denison Australia Pty Ltd has spent about $150m on the Koongarra project and Pancontinental Mining Ltd has spent about $49m at Jabiluka. Of course, these are uranium deposits and not able to be developed under the Federal Labor Government's present three-mine policy-a ludicrous policy arrived at out of political expediency and a need to pander to the left wing of the ALP. It is ironic to note that the operative uranium mine at Ranger was established during the Whitlam era. That Government could hardly be accused of having ignored environmental issues. A recent article in the Bulletin drew attention to the fact that the environmental impact of bulldozing the road into Kakadu for the purposes of extracting its uranium, of developing the north, for the security of the north and to serve the Aboriginal settlements, et cetera, was 10,000 times greater in magnitude than all of the mining activities in the Northern Territory put together. I am talking about the environmental impact of bulldozers. The article by Dr Leslie Kemmeny, a senior lecturer in nuclear engineering at the University of New South Wales, makes the very valid point that there is no alternative to the peaceful nuclear fuel cycle. That is what our uranium should be used for-energy. Dr Kemmeny said: The country which continues to burn or deplete its irreplenishible fossil and hydrocarbon resources is depriving future generations of fuel for transport and feed stock for plastics, pharmaceutical and agricultural industries. It is also destroying earth's environment. He also said: The problem in Australia is that for more than 30 years we have had to wait for a pragmatic, well-informed peaceful nuclear policy. We still do not have it. Political expediency still rules decisions in this area. No wonder our traditional partners for uranium are restless and our competitors are laughing! It is no wonder. Dr Kemmeny has articulated the view of many people in this country who believe that not only should Australia be mining its uranium but also we should be working belatedly towards the development of enrichment facilities in this country. We should be involved in the full nuclear fuel cycle. The vast majority of our uranium for the development of nuclear energy is in Kakadu. While we sit here, and while many people in this chamber are ready simply to dismiss billions of dollars worth of potential uranium exports, not to mention frustrating the development of the north, our competitors are scooping the pool. Let us not be fooled by those who say that there are not markets for uranium. The markets are there and there is no doubt that, if existing mines were allowed to increase production and new mines allowed to come on line, there would be no problem in obtaining contracts. That is very obvious. This plan of management, while it does not specifically relate to uranium mining, relates to all mining and has the potential to deprive Australia of export markets which are vitally important, and deprive the world of an energy source which is essential for many countries, such as France which generates 70 per cent of its power from nuclear energy. Of course, we have noticed that the Labor Government has agreed that France should be supplied. But we have sufficient uranium to supply not only France but many countries in the free world. I also wish to mention very briefly that mining in the park, while it has been grabbing the headlines, is not the only issue for which the plan of management fails adequately to provide. One other very important consideration is tourism. At present there are totally inadequate tourist accommodation facilities available to cater for the thousands of visitors to Kakadu each year. As the numbers grow, the need for substantial accommodation becomes more urgent. Whilst the plan states that, at the discretion of the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, some tourist accommodation may be constructed, this is not enough. The plan ignores the need for a co-ordinated approach to tourist development. The Territory Government has been extremely successful in promoting the Top End as a tourist destination and has supported the construction of first class tourist facilities at the Yulara resort at Ayers Rock. In Alice Springs and Darwin we have seen the construction of a number of international standard hotels, which are accommodating the very many international tourists, as well as interstate tourists, now visiting the Territory. The impression I get, reading through this plan, is that there is an aversion to providing moderate to large scale accommodation in Kakadu. It refers to camp sites and caravan parks, which are, no doubt, also very necessary. A range of accommodation options must be available to tourists, but there is no reason why accommodation of international standard cannot be provided in such a way as to fit in with the park and have a minimal impact on the environment. If anyone doubts whether this is possible, one need only look at Yulara to see just how well a large accommodation complex can be adapted to suit the environment. Lest anyone be under the misapprehension that such facilities would not be welcomed by the traditional Aboriginal owners, I assure all honourable senators that that is far from the case. The attitude of the Gagadju Association is that it is striving to develop tourist accommodation at Jabiru. Only the ANPWS, the Federal body, stands in its way, in the same way as that organisation and the Federal Government stand in the way of the development of uranium on traditional Aboriginal land. Senator Zakharov, who is trying to interject, has been up there and knows full well what the Aborigines believe in. They say: `Let us have a fair go to be able to develop ourselves'. They say that they do not have to live on government handouts, which is what the honourable senator wants them to do. She wants them to be subjected to the Federal Government so that their very existence is a handout to handout situation from day to day whereby they are not allowed to develop. As an example, Uranerz has recently come to an agreement with the Aboriginal people of Arnhem Land. Yet unless there is some change to Federal Government policy no progress will be able to be made on the development of mineral deposits which are the subject of this agreement, an agreement, as I said, entered into by the Aboriginal people. There are other deficiencies in this plan of management, including its proposal regarding the phasing out of commercial fishing in the park, in spite of the fact that the two species principally concerned-barramundi and crab-could by no means be regarded as at risk under existing arrangements. I emphasise those words: `under existing arrangements'. Those who drafted this plan, I fear, suffer severely from tunnel vision and short-sightedness, much like the Australian Labor Party-particularly its left wing. Under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act the Director of the Service is required to provide comments on representations received on the plan of management which was released for public comment. If one looks at the comments accompanying this plan, it is difficult to imagine a less scholarly, less scientific treatment of this requirement under the Act. The Director of the ANPWS has allocated a number to each representation and added up those in favour of the plan and those against in order to show, in terms of these numbers, that the plan is well supported. Every representation is treated with equal weight. A lengthy representation prepared by the best brains in the country would carry the same weight as a sentence from a primary school student under this primitive method. There is no comment on individual submissions. Instead, for every topic the Director selects a series of one- or two-sentence quotations from some of the representations and provides a generalised comment. It is extremely dubious whether comments on a few selected quotations fulfil the requirements of the Act. There is no doubt that it contravenes the spirit. The Northern Territory Government provided a comprehensive representation which was highly critical of the proposed plan of management in a number of important respects. It is frustrating that this representation has been totally ignored. It is reprehensible that it has not even been directly commented on by the Director. For the Northern Territory Government to be relegated to the status of a minor lobby group is intolerable. The Northern Territory Government is the duly elected Government of the region. If a democratic voice is to be brought to bear on the issues involved in management of the park, it is more likely to come from this source than from the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, the ANPWS or environmental groups. The Northern Territory Government's criticisms were not accommodated in the plan of management. They have not been addressed by the Director's comments and they still stand. Time is running out, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I thank you for that time. In closing I say that the plan, if it is passed and implemented, will deprive the Northern Territory and Australia of vital resources. It will ensure that the undisputed natural beauty of Kakadu remains the province of a select group, which has demonstrated little regard for the true interests of the nation. If the Government and the Australian Democrats pass this plan, they will be guilty of committing a grave disservice to the nation and will, I hope, be judged accordingly. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.05) —It is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate. As a member of the Senate I have visited the Kakadu park several times over the last seven or eight years. It is one of the areas of natural interest that I have visited in many parts of the world. Such areas are highly prized in other countries. I cite such places as the Kinabalu National Park in Sabah and areas in Europe, the United States of America and Britain. I can say without any risk of denial or contradiction that in the Kakadu National Park we have something which is so much better and so much more significant in world terms than any of the places I have mentioned that it is just beyond discussion. This is a point which I very much want to get across to honourable senators and to those who are listening, because the Kakadu National Park is a long way off, up in the Northern Territory, and most of the people in Australia are not up there; they are down here in south-eastern Australia. What I want to get across is that we have something there which, at all costs, must be preserved in its natural form so that it can be handed on in a pristine, natural form to our children, our grandchildren and to those who come after them. I agree with my colleague Senator Sanders, who spoke earlier in this debate, that the park needs no justification in economic terms. It justifies itself. It is something of enormous significance to this country. It is one of those things which make me go back to those well known words: In spite of our economic problems we truly are in the lucky country, because we have such a tremendous diversity of habitat, land forms, nature forms and animal and plant forms on this continent. This generation of Australians, then, has an absolute responsibility to preserve them. It should also have the sense of vision to look forward into the future far enough to see how even our economic interests are best served. I do not agree entirely with Senator Sanders's criticism of this plan of management for Kakadu. He mildly criticised it for what he called attempts to justify the park on economic grounds by providing tourist accommodation, roads and things of that kind. But this is a world-as can be seen from what we have heard from the Opposition-in which natural values are not necessarily of any great significance and in which it is necessary perhaps to compromise one's principles to the extent of saying that there are economic aspects to this matter that ought to be looked at. Unfortunately, in this world, the fate of the park may well rest on the proposition that it is better for Australia in the long run-and worth more money to Australia-not to mine it and to keep it in its original, pristine state. The fact is that anybody who has looked recently at some other parts of the world such as Japan, Europe and places of that kind, will realise that there are very few places left in the world which are natural and original in their pristine state. Where such places do exist, the people of those countries guard them with the utmost jealousy and they are anxious to go there. In America, the number of people allowed to go into national parks has been limited because of the danger of damage to them that could arise from unlimited access to them. In Japan, the areas of natural beauty to which Japanese people can go are pitifully small. They, very reasonably, are very interested in other parts of the world where that kind of facility is available. The Kakadu National Park, of course, is one of those rare places left in the world that have that kind of value. As the decades go on, it will be appreciated in Australia that in this area there is, in effect, better pay dirt than could be achieved through mining. If we leave the park alone, keep it under a proper plan of management-there will always be disagreement on what that is-and do not allow it to be the subject of mineral exploration and mineral development on any kind of large scale, in future times it will be worth enormous sums of money to Australia. Future generations will see tourists going to the area in their tens of thousands. It will be a major export income earner. But if in the meantime the area is ruined by unlimited mining-and it will be ruined if mining proceeds-we will have thrown all that away for short term gain which we would hope to get in our own time. As I shall say later, even that gain is not really there; it is illusory, Those of us who have not learned that so far in this country are fools. We all thought eight or 10 years ago that the mining boom would sustain us right through into the 21st century, which was great. There was all that uranium, coal and iron; we would continue to be the lucky country and everybody would buy those commodities. But that was not the case. We put faith in that area of our economy to our great cost. It is now time that every Australian and every member of parliament recognised that. We have made a boo-boo, and a pretty bad one it is. What is happening to our economy at the moment is largely attributable to that. Our job now is to try to salvage the situation and not to make the same mistakes in future as we have made in the past. One area in which that is basically of great significance is in our attitude towards areas of enormous natural merit such as the park. I was greatly entranced with the East Alligator River and its strange flora and fauna, its backwaters, its sandbanks, its birds and especially its crocodiles sliding off mudbanks at spots where Japanese tourists can photograph them. These features are worth a very great deal of money to this country. When one goes to Japan, as I have done, one finds that the people there agree. They want to come here and want to see these sights. But they do not want to come to a place that has been pockmarked all over with uranium mines, with ancient roads going across and uranium trucks or any kind of mining trucks trundling across the landscape. Surely we are not so naive as to think that in that way we shall retain the Kakadu National Park as an area of great beauty. Will the people coming along from other countries, with their attitudes towards their natural assets, think that it is great to see these vehicles trundling through these areas, and that it is economic and fine that we should be going in for mining of that sort? Those visitors will laugh at us and regard us as the barbarians of the twentieth century, and with good reason. If that is the sort of reputation Opposition members want for this country I can assure them that it is not the sort of reputation the Australian Democrats want for this country. There are certain standards in the world that are set and kept in environmental matters, and they are pretty high. They are high because other countries which have been bitten hard by the disease of development have found out from bitter experience that if one goes on long enough destroying natural assets, there is not much left in the end. There are a few pitiful fragments left and one nurtures and cherishes them. It is pitiful to go to Japan to the few areas of natural beauty and to see how carefully the people there have nurtured and looked after them. We would not think twice about those areas. To us they would be nothing but scrub. We must get away from the insularity of our outlook and do something about it. I try to wax fervent and emotional on this matter because I am very concerned about what I have heard from the Opposition. The course of democracy being what it is, it is quite possible that at the next election or the election after that this mob over here on my right may get back to government. I shudder to think what will happen to the Kakadu National Park in that eventuality, judging by what we have heard in this House today. The park will be plundered, torn apart and virtually destroyed. That is something the people of this country should not tolerate. For that reason the more people in Australia in the environmental movement and outside it who understand that here we have an asset of enormous importance to us and who make that known to the Government and to the Opposition and get across the feeling that interference with Kakadu National Park is an electoral no-no for everybody, the sooner something will be done about preserving the area. We know that the Opposition is under pressure from the Australian Mining Industry Council and the miners. We do not have to investigate the nature of that pressure too far. At some time I would like the Opposition to explain to me the nature of that pressure. I do not think that I shall be given a very honest answer. The point is that anybody who thinks that there will be any sort of restriction over mining in the Kakadu National Park is kidding himself. Once there is any kind of mining, it continues. As those of us who have been through the area know only too well, the uranium is the bottom line for the Kakadu National Park. I do not care what the Prime Minister is saying now, once one starts mining in that area it is the bottom line because that is the most prominent mineralisation of that area. It is a uranium mine or potential uranium mine of vast proportions. If anybody says `No, we will only go there for gold or platinum', that is nonsense. They will go there and when they get the gold and platinum, they will say: `Oh, there is all this uranium here. It is uneconomic not to do something with it'. Then we will be back where we started. I have seen a lot of material coming out from the public relations area of the mining industry recently saying that one can mine areas and put them back together the way they were. That is absolute rubbish. I admit that in some parts of Australia there have been careful plans to try to restore the landscape. One such area is the coast along southern Queensland and northern New South Wales and on the Gold Coast where there has been sand mining. It is very boring, almost monocultured country, though it has been restored. It looks nothing like the natural coastline elsewhere. Senator Crichton-Browne —Thank goodness. It's marvellous. Senator MASON —Senator Crichton-Browne may think it is marvellous. I do not know why he does. Senator Crichton-Browne —It was all scrub. Senator MASON —You called the original thing scrub. That is the difference between Senator Crichton-Browne and me. He calls it scrub, but I like it because it is what nature put there. It is the natural thing that has always been there and always should be there. That delicate, fragile coastline is one of the most important parts of our society, and it must be kept. Senator Crichton-Browne sees nothing wrong with what has happened there, and I give him the benefit of the doubt. He sees nothing wrong with tearing all this to pieces and destroying it, provided that one can plant something else there afterwards. Senator Crichton-Browne —Even if it is better? Senator MASON —What does the Senator mean by `better'? I say it is not better because it is not what was there originally. This world was created in a certain way, and it is part of our responsibility to see that at least small parts of it remain so that people in future can see those areas as they are. If they are given some sort of phoney landscape that is put back together and is completely unrecognisable from the original state, that is not the right thing to do. People who pay large sums of money to be in original, authentic wilderness will not come here unless that wilderness is preserved in its original form. There is a straight economic background to it. That is essential to us. I am very unhappy about Senator Kilgariff's remarks. He keeps harking back to uranium. I was waiting for this to happen in this debate because it is the final, fatal flaw among the Opposition. Opposition members seem to think there is magic in uranium, and I have never been able to understand that attitude. In virtually all the developed countries, except for France and Belgium, the authorities are drawing back on nuclear power. There has not been a nuclear power house commissioned in the United States of America for decades, and there will not be because of the dangers and difficulties that are being experienced with it. The Chernobyl disaster has finally put the lid on the whole idea of any large development of uranium in Europe. In Belgium it is incredible to see huge street lamps along all the roads all the way to the frontiers. It is not necessary to have such a system because one can drive at night without those facilities. However, this enormous overuse, almost waste, of electric power is due to the fact that Belgium is highly endowed with nuclear power plants, and this is the only way it can use that energy. I do not think that this is a sensible attitude towards life. What would we lose if mining were permitted extensively in the park, even in stage 2? We would destroy or at least mar, if we did so, an area of unique scenic and ecological importance. There is no way in which I can overstress to anyone listening to this debate tonight the danger and damage that could be done to an area of great importance. If one flies over the park one can see pockmarks from old uranium mines all over it. We would be destroying, or risking destroying, some of the most valuable and historic Aboriginal sites in Australia. In Kakadu are some of the original land bridges which, over the millennia, Aborigines used to enter this country. These are of enormous importance from every point of view. In the park one can also see some of the rock paintings which go back to the time of the very early occupation of this country by the Aboriginal people. When one goes to France one can see the great tourist attractions of Cro-Magnon man preserved in the Madeleine area and in the caves of Les Eyzies, but what I saw in those caves-and they are difficult enough to get into-is not comparable in beauty and extent with the Aboriginal drawings in Kakadu. These things have a value which would certainly be appreciated overseas. Senator Puplick —Who is disputing that? Senator MASON —Good; I am glad that Senator Puplick, agrees with me and is not disputing that fact. Therefore he must agree that we should not meddle with this area to the extent that some of his colleagues in the Opposition are proposing. Senator Crichton-Browne —Like whom? Senator MASON —Senator Kilgariff, for a start. He says that we should take out all the uranium that we can because it is a great thing for the future and that it will bring us lots of money. He says we will be squandering millions of dollars if we do not do it. Senator Crichton-Browne —Billions. Senator MASON —Billions, as Senator Crichton-Browne says. I think he has proved my point. Liberal members are not really limiting exploitation of that type in the park; they are prepared to carry on with it. I think it is absolutely tragic that they should think that way. I wish to speak briefly about the fragility of the whole area. This is one of the great problems of any mining in the area, and of course, it is a problem for Ranger. Enormous sections of the area are flood plains. The East Alligator River, the Magela Creek and all of its back waters are flood plains. The whole region is subject to very heavy rainfall every year. Senator Crichton-Browne —What percentage? Senator MASON —All of it. The monsoon rain does not fall discriminately, it falls everywhere. There are small creeks and watercourses everywhere. I cannot believe that one could mine this area-particularly if one was thinking of extensive underground mining and it would appear that that is likely-without causing trouble and without releasing heavy metals and some sort of contamination into the environment. That has already been shown by mining experience in that area. With the best will in the world- and I credit the Ranger partners with that-it has not been possible to contain absolutely the contamination. Heavy metal contamination from Ranger has occurred from time to time in Magela Creek and places like that. Stage 2 of the park is important. Some people say that it is not-that it has been pastoral properties and that it has been abused and used. I suppose that there is a certain truth in some of that. But I would point out that two wrongs do not make a right. If one has an area that is of great intrinsic importance and it has already been messed around with, there is no excuse for messing it around extensively any more. In fact that is much more a reason for looking after it, preserving it and trying not to mess it up any more. All sorts of things go on in stage 2. According to the Australian Conservation Foundation, Kakadu National Park is the most likely place for the salt water crocodiles to develop reasonable populations. Here at this stage they are safe from man and man is safe from them. That will not be the case if there is selective mining in these areas. The first major problems with crocodiles are now developing at the East Alligator tourist area in the park. These difficulties happen from time to time and there have been several incidents involving crocodiles. However, crocodiles are a threatened world species and the Kakadu National Park populations are probably the healthiest surviving in the world. That information comes from the Bonn meeting of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. In this case we have surveillance of a species that we may regard as a nuisance because crocodiles may eat people, but nevertheless they are an endangered species of the world. Senator Puplick —Ha, ha! Senator MASON —Senator Puplick may laugh. He may ask what right a crocodile has to exist. I point out that we have these species and if we can provide a habitat for them that is not disturbed and where they can continue to exist, that is something worth doing. Senator Puplick —Then why do you support a plan of management that allows hunting for the first time? Senator MASON —There is much in the plan of management that one could criticise. In this world one must take what one can get while one can. If Senator Sanders, I and a few other people were rewriting this plan, I am sure that we could improve it greatly. Unfortunately, due to the failure of the Australian people to give the Australian Democrats enough votes in the past, we are not in a position to do so. I can assure honourable senators that that will be remedied at some stage in the future. I return to the question of Aboriginal interests. There is an interesting assessment of that by the Australian Conservation Foundation. Kakadu stage 2 contains many Aboriginal sites of importance which could suffer damage from exploration and mining. We have persistent statements from members of the mining industry disparaging or in some way running down the Aborigines' view of the land. That is very serious. A lot of those people with mining interests who make these comments represent foreign interests. Let us face it: They are not Australians; they are foreigners, who want to come here and loot this land for everything they can. If our indigenous people feel very honestly that they have an important link between their own personalities and the land-a form of animism, perhaps-then what right have people who are foreign to this country to come here and tell us that that is nonsense, it is mumbo jumbo and magic and it should be destroyed? How would those people feel if I went to a cemetery in France and said that I intended to dig it up to find out whether there was any coal underneath it? They would be scandalised, and quite rightly. For the same reason, the Aborigines would not want to see one of their sacred sites disturbed. Quite apart from sacred sites, I recognise and appreciate the view of the Aborigines towards their land. It is something of value because it is based on something that we have not been able to do-and that is to live for generations and centuries with the land and not destroy it; to keep it in its natural form; to live in balance with nature and to get away from the neo-platonic view that somehow we are the lords of creation and that it is our right to maraud and to destroy all other species and that everything is only there for our greater glory and wealth. This is nonsense, and increasingly human beings are recognising that. Perhaps we need a more enlightened form of animism in this world. We must recognise the value of other living things. If we want to do that, the best place we can start to do it is in Kakadu National Park. Perhaps you, Senator Crichton-Browne, should go there for a few weeks, have a look around and wonder at what is there. Then perhaps you should consider what you think is of value-whether your grubby little friends from Italy or France should go there and take out minerals or whether it is better for us, the members of this Parliament who represent the people of this country, not those who come from overseas to tear it apart, to recognise that it is our responsibility-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Oh, come on! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! Senator Mason, I think you should direct your remarks through the Chair. Senator MASON —Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I point out to Senator Crichton-Browne that our duty as a Parliament is to look after the interests of this country and not those of people who come here with persuasive arguments and expensive public relations exercises to try to convince Australians that somehow it is perfectly all right to mine national parks and that somehow we will all be better off as a result. Senator Siddons —Like Senator Crichton-Browne's overseas friends. Senator MASON —That is right, Senator Siddons. Senator Crichton-Browne can enlighten us on that point later. I return to the view of the Australian Conservation Foundation on the impact of mining development. It says: The impact of exploration alone could be serious. There are 530 exploration leases over Kakadu Stage II already from one company, Peko-EZ. The map of Stage II shows that there is an overdevelopment of tracks and roads which extend disturbance. Road access to all exploration sites would greatly exacerbate this problem. Road access increases uncontrolled shooting problems and produces further problems of intrusion on Aboriginal sites. Actual mine development would severely diminish the World Heritage value of the entire park. Peko-EZ already know of and predict large mineral deposits deep in Stage II. They are unlikely to construct new milling and treatment plants with their Ranger complex relatively nearby. Therefore there would be a likelihood of streams of giant ore trucks moving continuously to and from the existing Jabiru plant, sharing the road with tourists to Kakadu. The poor tourists; it must be great fun for them. Getting back to uranium, the letter makes the point: It is frequently argued- I heard this mentioned during Senator Sanders's speech- that uranium mines are relatively small if underground, however impact is very widespread. Blasts from Ranger have been heard 50 kms away, dislodging massive boulders from cliff tops. Tailings dams and light glow cause visual pollution for considerable distances. This is not to mention the real danger of radioactive accidents-both existing mines have already had problems. We believe that this is hardly a suitable scenario for a World Heritage area. This is not a matter for those people who have self-interests, people who for some reason or other are protecting the miners; it is a matter for the people of Australia. I appeal through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to the people of Australia to see that this area is not despoiled and marauded. The area is there now and it exists largely in a form which can be preserved. Do not let us muff up this one. For heaven's sake, let us see that this is preserved so that it goes on for our children and their children and grandchildren as much as possible the way it is. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.31) —I rise to support Senator Collard's motion for disallowance of the management plan for Kakadu National Park. I propose to devote my remarks to three issues: Firstly, the history of the proclamation of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park; secondly, some analysis of the plan of management which we are seeking to disallow; and, thirdly, the potential for multiple land usage in stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park. Before I address those issues, I want to make a couple of comments about the speeches which have preceded mine and to anticipate a couple of remarks which Senator Richardson will make following me. Senator Richardson —I am not that predictable. Senator PUPLICK —Senator Richardson says that he is not that predictable. Anybody who knows the history of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales knows precisely that Senator Richardson is one of the most predictable persons one could come across. I will come to that matter in a few minutes. In opening this debate Senator Collard made it perfectly clear, on behalf of the Opposition, that, in terms of our commitment to the protection of the wetlands, the escarpment areas and the Aboriginal rock galleries, nothing would be done or advocated by the coalition parties that would put any of those three elements of the Kakadu National Park or Kakadu region in any jeopardy. Senator Robertson, who led the debate for the Labor Party on this occasion, made two of the most outstanding comments that one could possibly make, both of which I hope to devote some attention to this evening. The first comment was that the management plan which we are seeking to disallow is an outstanding document. It is not an outstanding document; it is a shabby, second-rate and flawed document. Secondly, he made the great claim that all of the mineral leases which were matters of debate were somehow outside the area of the Kakadu National Park. What Senator Robertson failed to tell the Senate was that they were largely areas excised from the boundaries of the park; nevertheless, they were entirely surrounded by the park. We had a contribution from Senator Sanders on behalf of the Australian Democrats. The most important point Senator Sanders made in his contribution was that the plan was deficient. I agree with that and I will return to that point in a minute. We had an extraordinary contribution from Senator Mason, who accused the Opposition of seeking open slather on development in the park area. He quite clearly misrepresented the point of view which Senator Collard had put forward and which Senator Parer and Senator Kilgariff had supported. This extraordinary diversion is his version of what is wrong with neoplatonism as a doctrine of human behaviour. I am to be followed in the debate this evening by Senator Richardson. Senator Richardson has been sent in here to hold up the greenies' end as part of the Hawke Government's strategy to try to rebuild that famous coalition which it thinks it can cobble back together in order to try to re-establish some sort of credibility with the environmental groups on the issues of uranium, a great deal of South West Tasmania and woodchipping. Senator Richardson has been sent in here to stick his finger in the proverbial dike in order to try to make some last ditch effort to salvage the credibility of this Government with the environmental groups. I have no hesitation in predicting that Senator Richardson will say, when he follows me, that the record of the Hawke Government in terms of the environment has been outstanding and that woodchipping and uranium were merely aberrations. One thing he will not do in the course of the debate is address you, Mr Acting Deputy President, as `mate', because we always know that that is the absolutely fatal trigger word which means that you are about to get shafted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —That is almost unparliamentary, Senator. Senator PUPLICK —The last thing I would want to do is be unparliamentary. Therefore, for those who do not understand the term, let me put it in far more prosaic and parliamentary terms. Whenever Senator Richardson says `mate' it means that he is about to stab you in the back. As far as that is concerned, Mr Acting Deputy President, you know precisely what Senator Richardson will have to say when he rises to his feet in a few minutes. The first issue I wish to address is the way in which the proclamation of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park has been handled. In July 1984 at a meeting of the Commonwealth and State Council of Nature Conservation Ministers-CONCOM-a regime was agreed upon between the Commonwealth and States under which the Commonwealth undertook that it would not proclaim areas for the World Heritage listing without proper and adequate consultation with the State authorities. This followed the events which had taken place as a result of the Commonwealth's actions on the South West Tasmania situation. The formal agreement between the Commonwealth and States was produced as part of a document entitled `Australia and the World Heritage Convention' which was issued by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment in February 1986. That document made it quite clear that consultation with the States would take place. Under the heading `Process for nominating Australian properties' as part of the CONCOM agreement, the Commonwealth made the following agreement: . . . the Commonwealth Government writes to the State and Territory Governments inviting them to submit suggestions . . . any suggestions for World Heritage listing brought forward by other than a State or Territory Government to be referred, with supporting information, to the relevant State or Territory Government for comment prior to examination by the Commonwealth. . . . . The Commonwealth Government has indicated, however, that it will not take unilateral action to nominate areas for World Heritage listing without the agreement of the State or Territory concerned. The written document produced at CONCOM and reproduced in the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment statement of February 1986 states that there will be not just consultation but agreement. In April 1986 I pursued some investigation of this matter with Professor Ovington, the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, at the hearings of Estimates Committee D. On 10 April 1986 I asked Professor Ovington about the progress of stage 2 of Kakadu. As reported at page 53 of the Hansard of the Committee's hearings of that date, Professor Ovington said: It is my understanding that the Northern Territory Government is being approached about that proposal to attach stage 2 in that way to the World Heritage area. Subsequently he said: Having got that advice it is my understanding that the Government- that is, the Federal Government- will be approaching, or has approached, the Northern Territory Government to say it is intending to do that. That is, to proclaim or to move forward with stage 2. No consultation was undertaken. On 8 September, Senator Gareth Evans wrote to Mr Copeman of Peko-Wallsend and he said: It is my view, which I have again conveyed to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, that it would be premature to pursue the World Heritage listing of Kakadu Stage 2 until related questions about mineral activity in the Kakadu Region have been addressed by the Commonwealth. That is what Senator Gareth Evans said on 8 September. On 16 September, Mr Cohen wrote to Mr Coulter, the Minister for Mines and Energy in the Northern Territory, and he said: Should the Commonwealth decide to pursue World Heritage listing of the former Stage 2 area, your Government will be consulted in accordance with the CONCOM agreement prior to any approach being made to the World Heritage Secretariat in Paris. When the Kakadu plan of management was tabled page 23 of that document indicated: Consideration is being given to the nomination of the former Stage 2 area subject to appropriate consultation. On 16 September, Mr Cohen sent that letter to Mr Coulter. On precisely the same day, 16 September, Mr Cohen and Senator Evans were party to putting out a statement in their joint names which said that they were going to pursue the listing of Stage 2 on the World Heritage List and that no further consideration of consultation with the Northern Territory was going to be undertaken or was required. On the day, 16 September, that Mr Cohen wrote to Mr Coulter promising consultation, he issued a statement in conjunction with Senator Evans who had previously written, no more than eight days before, indicating that there would be consultation, denying that any consultation would take place. On the following day, 17 September, a document was sent to Paris as part of the nomination papers for stage 2 of the World Heritage listing. It is a lengthy document. It must have been in Mr Cohen's possession, or at least known to Mr Cohen, well in advance of his having signed the letter of 16 September to Mr Coulter telling him that there would be consultation. Mr Acting Deputy President, I say to you that it is perfectly clear that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment deliberately, wilfully and maliciously misled the Northern Territory Government over this matter. That is one of the criticisms that we clearly raise over the way in which the Government has proceeded in this matter. I turn now to the specifics of the plan which we are seeking to disallow. I draw attention to at least six substantial deficiencies in the document entitled `Kakadu National Park Plan of Management'. The first of these is over the question of hunting. Senator Mason was in the Senate waxing eloquent tonight about the question of the protection of animals in Kakadu National Park, but this document for the first time provides a substantial regime for the carriage of firearms and for hunting to take place within the Kakadu National Park. I quote from page 63 of that document which states: In the previous Plan, except for the purposes of traditional hunting for authorised scientific purposes or for Park management, hunting was not permitted. Under this plan hunting is permitted. Under the heading `Objectives' the document states: The prime objective is to ensure public safety and amenity within the Park whilst permitting legitimate use of firearms and allowing appropriate hunting, fishing and gathering by Aboriginals. If one looks at the issue which Senator Mason specifically raised about the protection of estuarine and salt water crocodiles in the Kakadu National Park, one sees that it is quite clear that there is a degree of hysteria about the position of crocodiles as far as the northern areas of Australia are concerned. Earlier this month we saw in the Australian Financial Review discussions about the development of a process of export of crocodile skins from the Northern Territory. On 27 September this year, there was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald under the heading `Knives are out for a croc slaughter'. One sees in the journal Social Alternatives for September 1986 the question about the status of and the danger being posed to crocodile populations in northern Australia. As Senator Mason has indicated, they are deserving of protection. Crocodile species should not be wiped out willy-nilly in northern Australia and, in particular, in the Kakadu National Park. Yet this is a plan of management which, for the first time, allows large scale hunting to take place within the confines of the Kakadu National Park. As far as the park is concerned one takes secondly the issue of tourism. It is quite clear that the restrictions which are to be imposed on tourists in the Kakadu National Park are entirely inadequate. There is an attempt in the plan to indicate that all sorts of facilities will be provided for the tourists, including the right to take photographs. I suppose that one is to be grateful to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for having developed a program which allows Australians to take photographs in a part of their own country. We know when we look at the Uluru National Park plan of management that, although that was supposed to take place-we can see the details of that appearing on page 123 of that management plan-there are now substantial areas of that national park where one cannot take photographs because the park service has conspired with various groups and interests around the place to prevent ordinary Australians from taking photographs in a part of their own country. At pages 134 and 135 of the plan of management, which we are seeking to overturn this evening, we now have this regime trying to provide some feeble protection for that. If we look at the Northern Territory Government's comments on the plan of management in respect of the Kakadu National Park we see that it states: A fixed Plan of Management is not the ideal tool for managing the development of something as complex as the tourist industry over a period as long as five years. It is not possible to plan in detail for a rapidly expanding activity over this period of time. The draft Plan, however, is not even precise on the broad strategy for development. It is a vague and generalised collection of intentions almost devoid of specific commitments. That is exactly what has happened in terms of the draft plan, going over into the final plan. One would be hard pressed to find as feeble a plan of management of tourist facilities in a national park as this document provides. I come now to the question of the protection of Aboriginal sites. Sacred sites allegedly are to be protected. This afternoon Senator Collard made a commitment that Aboriginal rock painting galleries would be adequately protected. But we have in this plan three or four pages of the most feeble attempts to define what will be protected in terms of Aboriginal sites. Let us just see what the Northern Territory Sacred Sites Authority has had to say about all this. The moment Coronation Hill popped up as a significant mineral deposit-perhaps one of the greatest gold deposits in the world-all of a sudden the Northern Territory Sacred Sites Authority found that Bulla was an Aboriginal site of some significance. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will not be surprised to know that it was sitting right on top of Coronation Hill. What happened, of course, was that Joe Fisher, a distinguished mineral and mining engineer and amateur anthropologist, a person who knows this area more intimately than almost anybody else and a person who was largely responsible for getting the Kakadu National Park put on to the World Heritage listing in the first place, came along and said: `I have got documentary evidence. I have got photographs. I know where this Bulla site is. In fact, it is 26 kilometres away from Coronation Hill'. There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that that is the case, and this plan of management is deficient in exactly that sort of fashion. Let us turn to another area-the management of fire in the National Park. What is the objective set out in the National Park management document? It is: The general aim of fire management is to re-establish so far as possible the traditional Aboriginal patterns of burning. That is absolute nonsense in terms of dealing with a park which no longer can possibly respond to traditional Aboriginal patterns of anything, let alone traditional Aboriginal patterns of burning. Yet here is, allegedly, the statement in the plan of management that that is the way in which fire management, one of the most significant tasks that a national park authority has to undertake, is to be sent back to conform in some fashion with traditional Aboriginal patterns of burning. That is an absolute nonsense as far as national park management objectives are concerned. Nobody in his right mind would be prepared to put that down and accept that as part of a legitimate national park objective. We come finally to the question of mining which I regard as one of the lesser issues in this debate. I am concerned about the general environmental validity of this plan. I do not give overwhelming preponderance to consideration of the question of mining, but page 122 of the plan states: The main objective is to protect the Park's resources from exploitation. Frankly, that is not correct. Tourists exploit national parks. We make national parks in order to allow tourists some form of exploitation of them. Animals and people who use national parks exploit them. They are not there to be protected from exploitation; they are there to be conserved within the limits of legitimate exploitation. This plan goes on to say: Subject to Section 8b of the Act, no operations for the recovery of minerals will be carried out in the Park. If one looks at the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 one will see clearly imposed upon the Director the responsibility, in drawing up a plan of management, to take into account the legitimate rights of miners. Section 8b (1) (a) (i) refers to the provisions of a plan of management which should not affect any interest in respect of that land or in respect of any minerals on, in or beneath that land held immediately before that land was within the park. So the pre-existing mineral leases, of which there are a substantial number, ought to be provided for in terms of section 8b of the Act within the plan of management. The plan of management cannot override the Act which requires that it do certain things, yet here is a plan of management deliberately setting out to override the provisions of the Act which causes it to come into being in the first place. If one compares this with the regime which was established in the first plan of management, a far more significant, sensitive and intelligent document, one can see precisely how mining was properly provided for. I have shown this extract to Senator Grimes. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the section under the heading `Mining' which is taken from the first plan of management for Kakadu National Park. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 56. Mining Operations for the recovery of minerals may be carried on in the Park during the period of this Plan where these have been approved by the Governor-General as required under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. Where the Governor-General gives his approval for such operations to be carried on the following conditions will apply: Operations for the recovery of minerals may be carried on only in accordance with best practicable technology; Suitably qualified and experienced officers are to be appointed to ensure effective environmental control including the protection of the natural and cultural resources of the Park; All persons employed in connection with each operation shall be instructed in and informed of the provisions of this Plan of Management, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, and other applicable laws relating to the preservation of the environment and the protection of people from the effects of mining; No plants or animals exotic to the Alligator Rivers Region shall be introduced without the written permission of the Director; Any release of contaminants into the natural water systems of the Park shall be controlled under specifications approved by the Director acting on the best advice available including that of the appropriate supervising authorities; Erosion products resulting from the operations shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be prevented from entering the natural water systems of the Park; Good engineering practice shall be used in designing and constructing all structures connected with the operations; The disposal methods and placement of waste products including tailings and waste rock shall be as approved by the Director acting on the best advice available including that of the appropriate supervising authorities; All sites where ground has been disturbed shall be rehabilitated and revegetated to standards approved by the Director acting on the best advice available including that of the appropriate supervising authorities; All practicable steps will be taken to protect vegetation and keep disturbance from trampling, cutting, picking, unplanned and uncontrolled burning and other causes to a minimum; Monitoring programs, approved by the Director acting on the best advice available including that of the appropriate supervising authorities, covering all aspects of each operation shall be carried out during all phases of the operations; Any buildings required in connection with operations for the recovery of minerals are to be designed and located so as to be in sympathy with the Park environment. In the light of information that becomes available during the period of this Plan the Director may impose additional conditions in the interest of protecting Park values. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 requires, inter alia, that a mining interest in respect of Aboriginal land shall not be granted unless: (a) both the Minister and the Land Council for the area in which the land is situated have consented, in writing, to the making of the grant; or (b) the Governor-General has, by Proclamation, declared that the national interest requires that the grant be made. Prospecting and exploration may require access to the Park for persons, equipment and supplies. Procedures may include, geological mapping, geochemical surveys, including shallow auger drilling, geophysical surveys, trenching, percussion and diamond drilling and the establishment of exploration camps with associated services in some areas of the Park. Mining activities may include (a) either underground or open-cut operations or both, the access of persons, equipment and supplies and the construction of mining, ore treatment and associated facilities; (b) the provision of tailings dams and other facilities for storage of waste products and the storage of mine and process water; and (c) activities necessary or incidental to the production, handling, transportation, storage and treatment of ore. It may be necessary for some excavation to be carried out in the Park for obtaining materials required for road construction and maintenance, construction and maintenance of the improvements and facilities listed in figures 46.1 and 54.1 and for other construction and/or maintenance for park operations approved by the Director. Where such excavations are carried out disturbance of the soil and vegetation will be kept to the minimum feasible and appropriate rehabilitation measures will be taken including the use of species native to the region. In general the environmental standards applied will be comparable to those at Jabiru but additional conditions may be imposed in the interests of Park protection. During 1979, literature about Kakadu National Park was supplied to the mining companies in the region for distribution to their staff. In addition, an orientation course for senior mining staff was held and proved to be an effective means of informing them of Park values and the problems of Park management to protect those values. There was general agreement that orientation courses of this type are useful and should be held each year and be available to larger numbers of senior mining staff. It is planned to hold at least one orientation course for mining staff in each year of this Plan. The general provision of information about the Park and co-operation with the mining companies through periodic discussions, courses and seminars will continue. During the period of this Plan this liaison will provide a means to plan the infrastructure having regard to its possible use for park needs. Similarly this would assist rehabilitation measures once mining ends. Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Senate. This makes it perfectly clear that it is possible to establish a plan of management for the Kakadu National Park which has proper regard to the objectives of the Act and which allows mining in controlled and proper circumstances. I turn finally to the question of multiple land usage in the park. In an address given to the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy in September this year, Mr Payne, the Minister of Mines and Energy in South Australia-an excellent State Labor Minister-makes the point that it is possible for all the interests to be properly accommodated. He says: Recent initiatives in South Australia have shown that subsurface, surface and conservation interests can be accommodated through communication and consultation. He goes on to describe the South Australian Government's policy by saying that a package has been designed to foster multiple land use concepts. That is the very point which, some time ago, Senator Evans was intent on making. On 18 September 1986 Senator Evans said to the Senate Estimates Committee in regard to this area: . . . subject to appropriate protection there ought to be no intrinsic rational reason why a multiple land use regime should not be established for national parks, which already accommodate a variety of different land uses anyway . . . One can even see from the documents of the Australian Conservation Foundation that it makes it quite clear that it understands the value of multiple land usage, even though it does reproduce with some disparity Senator Evans's description of stage 3 as `clapped-out buffalo country' which indeed is exactly what it is. Even the Conservation Foundation, Senator Evans and Mr Payne, the South Australian Labor Minister, know that multiple land usage is a viable way of exploiting the resources of a national park and, at the same time, preserving the important intrinsic features of a national park. Will Senator Richardson, who will follow me, and Senator Zakharov, who will speak later, denounce Senator Evans for his failure to understand what multiple land usage amounts to? Will they denounce Mr Payne, their South Australian Labor colleague, for being ignorant about what multiple land usage in these areas can be? We know that even if the mining companies had entirely their own way in relation to the areas that they are seeking to exploit at the moment, less than one per cent of the entire region would be involved. Multiple land usage in which one per cent of the region is actually affected by these things seems to me to be an absolutely rational approach to making maximum use of our own national resources and, at the same time, preserving the inherent and intrinsic values of those parts of the Kakadu National Park that we want to preserve. We know that it is not just a matter of uranium. I appreciate Senator Mason's particular hang- ups about uranium. I understand the strain and stress that Senator Mason is under now; he is thinking about whether he should have announced his decision to retire, seeing the wrong candidate has been preselected for the Australian Democrats in New South Wales, or whether he ought to resign early in order to allow some young person to get in and head off Mrs Kirkby at the pass before she gets in here and tells the Senate what she at least thinks of Don Chipp as the Leader of the Australian Democrats. I understand the psychological pressure that Senator Mason is under this evening, but he should not seek to try to take it out entirely on the poor old uranium miners. They are not responsible for the state of decay, radioactive or otherwise, that the Australian Democrats have got themselves into. We know that the resources of the national park include not only uranium but also enormous deposits of gold, platinum, tin and tungsten, and we know full well that the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has absolutely no idea of what those resources are. In the Senate Estimates Committee hearing of 7 October 1986 I was pressing Dr McCusker of the Service about the resources of the national park. She said: There has not been a mineral survey to identify the total resources of the area that would complete the work that could be done, for example, by the Bureau of Mineral Resources or other bodies. Some information is available but I understand it is believed that more survey work should be done. Of course more survey work should be done. Here are the Australian Labor Party and the Government trying to lock the cupboard without knowing what its contents are. Nobody knows; there is no evidence on record of the resources of stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park. Yet that is to be closed down under this plan of management which says there will be no mineral exploration and no mining activity, despite the clear requirements of section 8 of the Act that a plan of management provides for some method of dealing with mineral resources in the park. I conclude by drawing the attention of the Senate again to three points. This stage 2 proclamation has taken place by the most underhanded, backroom series of deals involving the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and the Minister for Resources and Energy who have consistently misled the Northern Territory Government as to the way in which they would proceed. The plan of management is flawed in terms of its protection of the wildlife, its hunting arrangements, its tourist arrangements, its sacred site arrangements, its fire management arrangements and its mining arrangements-which it should have made under section 8 of the Act, by which it is bound-and it has failed to understand the principles of multiple land usage, which ought to be absolutely critical to the development of management plans in national parks if there is to be the broad-based consensus over support for national parks and the development of national parks which this country desperately needs, and in Kakadu in more ways than one. As a result, Senator Collard's motion for the disallowance of this plan of management ought to be supported by the Senate. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(10.02) —It is my earnest hope that all those around this country interested in the cause of conservation and the preservation of our environment are listening to this debate, because nothing could make it more clear. There could be no more stark contrast between the two major parties. Lately I often hear people saying that the two parties have got policies that are too close together. Let me say that on the issue of the environment, and on Kakadu and the banning of mining in stages 1 and 2, our policies are miles apart. The gulf is wide and getting wider, because the battle for Kakadu represents in this country the great environmental battle of the next few years. Just as the Hawke Government took on the Liberal Party of Australia in 1983 and made sure that we won the battle over the Franklin River and that the south-west of Tasmania was not destroyed for no purpose at all, we will win this one too. I hope that all those who are listening understand that, if they have any concern for conservation and any concern for the great parts of our environment around this country, they have got to stick with the Australian Labor Party because we are the only party that can possibly deliver any saving grace for them. A lot has been spoken about Kakadu in ignorance tonight, mostly by people who have never been there and will never go there. There is no Hilton Hotel in Kakadu, which makes it a bit hard for Senator Puplick. But those of us, working class lads, who struggled through it recently got to see a great deal. We liked it so much we are going back next week. It would have been nice if those on the other side could have been a little bit more patient and waited until the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, of which I am a member and Senator Zakharov is Chairman, was able to report and give its recommendations on mining in Kakadu. But here we are tonight debating the matter too early and, obviously, when too many members of the Opposition have not had time to find out what is going on. Senator Crichton-Browne —Steady. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Crichton-Browne is the leader of that push. If we give him a lifetime, he will not find out what is going on. I will try to explain something about Kakadu. We have heard Senator Gareth Evans's rather colourful phrase tonight-`clapped out buffalo country'. I have got to concede, just for a start, that there is a lot of that in Kakadu. But I must also say that the area involved in Kakadu is massive-over 6,000 square kilometres in each of stage 1 and stage 2, before we get to stage 3, about which we are now having the argument. When we look at that massive area, we have to acknowledge that right along the escarpment and in the areas adjacent to it, we have some of the most beautiful country in Australia, magnificent country with phenomenal wetlands-- Senator Lewis —About 100 acres of it. Senator RICHARDSON —For Senator Lewis's information-which is deficient again-it goes for miles and miles. I will have to get him up there to have a look. It is great country. It is worth preserving, and that is what we will do. If honourable senators want to look at our most recent advertisement for Kakadu, we have got Crocodile Dundee. I hope they have all seen that film. One of the spots that are shown in Crocodile Dundee is UDP Falls. That name comes from the uranium development project from the 1950s. It is not exactly the sort of name one would normally choose for a magnificent spot, a spot of absolutely phenomenal beauty. The thing about UDP Falls in Crocodile Dundee is that if one looks at that magnificent scene, the fantastic waterfall, the crystal clear water and Linda Kozlowski's swimsuit-all of that-it is magnificent. When we look at that, we learn that that is one spot among dozens along that escarpment of magnificent falls areas that we have to save. The sad thing for the mining lobby and for its spokesmen in the Parliament is that so many of the prospective areas are right along the escarpment. If we give it carte blanche, we will find many of those magnificent falls and waterways will be destroyed. We cannot allow that. Let us just go through what the real argument is for the conservationists. It is all about water quality and the flow of the South Alligator. Senator Townley —The falls are not in the park. Senator RICHARDSON —I want Senator Townley to take a few deep breaths. I am worried about him. Let us look at the problem of the South Alligator River and its headwaters. As the catchment area spreads obviously much wider than just that small strip, if we allow untrammelled mining, as Opposition senators would have us do, through that area-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Now you have opened your mouth. Senator RICHARDSON —The rhetoric may be glib, but the reality is simple. Opposition senators will let anyone with a shovel have a go; we will not. If honourable senators look at the size of the catchment area and if they have a look at the effects of mining, they have to understand that there has to be some sort of compromise. It is not just the spot where one can say: `All in' or `All out'. So the Hawke Government, in its wisdom and to its everlasting credit, said no to mining in stage 1 and stage 2. Already in that area we have got-- Senator Puplick —It is in stage 1 or stage 2, isn't it? Senator RICHARDSON —Just a minute. Take it easy. Senator Puplick did not know that. He should not display too much ignorance; we have all seen enough tonight. We got 30 minutes of it. Let us not see much more. If honourable senators examine the difficulty that we have, they will see that the allowance of mining all over that park through stage 1 and stage 2, let alone into stage 3, means the destruction of so many of those areas. When Ranger is already operating-a big mine, employing-- Senator Townley —It is not a really big one. Senator RICHARDSON —It is not as big as the honourable senator would have it, but I would say it is pretty big. It is well known in my Party-I must say, not to the pleasure of all-that I am a supporter of uranium mining. I do not resile from that point of view. I have no desire whatsoever to close down Ranger-none. But I have to say that to allow mines to operate in stage 3 will mean that those wetlands cannot be protected. The one factor that Senator Puplick fails to mention-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Where is all the uranium? Senator RICHARDSON —There is uranium in stage 3. We have got to concede that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne, you are interjecting far too much. Senator RICHARDSON —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Let us look at stage 3. We have got to an argument now about gold and about platinum. They are the two minerals in the world that are performing well. These days digging up anything else is hardly worth our while, but gold and platinum prices continue to go through the roof. I, unlike Senator Puplick, had the opportunity only in May of standing atop Coronation Hill, of looking all around it. Senator Puplick —Is that where Max Gillies saw you? Senator RICHARDSON —I do not know where Max Gillies saw me, as a matter of fact; I am trying to work that out. I have had a low profile. I cannot work out how he ever heard of me. Let me get back to Coronation Hill. I thought Senator Puplick misled the Senate rather grievously, because in referring to the Bulla site, as he did, he attempted to have us believe that the Aboriginals were simply wrong about it being there, that it was in a place 26 miles away. The reality is that in the whole region there are Bulla sites all over the place. There is not one, there are not two; there are many of them. However, what convinced me at the time I was sitting atop Coronation Hill that it ought to be mined was the fact that the legend or religion of the local people has it that once the site is disturbed bulla leaves. Sitting atop Coronation Hill I realised that there are already two open cut holes in the side of the mountain and an adit going right through it; so I figured he might have left already. So I could not argue with Coronation Hill being mined. The region-it is not all that big, although we are talking about a big prospective area-covers a strip about 50 kilometres long and 10 kilometres wide. That is where we are told the big stuff is, where the hundreds of millions-or billions, depending upon whom one wishes to believe-of dollars worth of resources are all tucked away. The sad thing is that it goes right along the escarpment and right along the waterways. The conservationists have a legitimate problem. Senator Townley —That is not an escarpment, it is a hill. Do you know the difference between an escarpment and a hill? Senator RICHARDSON —I ask the honourable senator to take more than a deep breath. He sounds more stupid by the moment. When looking at that area and trying to assess its value and how we as a government can protect it, I think the biggest worry in relation to the decisions we are now making is that gold processing inevitably will involve the use of large amounts of cyanide. Gold cannot be processed without cyanide and it does not take a little bit of cyanide, it takes a lot. While it might be easy to say that tailings dams and everything can successfully keep pollution intact and that the environmentalists do not need to worry, the fact is that there would be a great need for worry if cyanide were ever to leak into those waterways at all. One of the things I would like the Committee that some of us in the chamber at the moment sit on to find out is just what the mining lobby has to say about that. I would like to know where the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd intends to process its gold before I agree to anything. We still need to go through many big arguments. We want to make sure that right through that strip in stage 3 of which I have just spoken not only are the most obvious precautions taken in regard to the environment with initial mining but also we take a good look at processing. I would like to find out in this debate what anyone on the other side thinks of it, because all they can do is salivate at the prospect of getting the bulldozers in. There is no thought whatsoever for the heritage value of Kakadu. Fortunately this Government, in looking at areas the geology of which goes back several million years, will do something about it. On 16 September 1986 we had a joint statement from the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Barry Cohen. I take it it is that statement that has led us to this debate tonight. Senator Crichton-Browne —It gave you epilepsy. Senator RICHARDSON —I did not hear that interjection. I am probably glad I did not. Senator Crichton-Browne —I said it gave you a lump in the guts. Senator RICHARDSON —It gave me a what? I am sorry, I find this coarse language in the Senate very difficult to understand. This statement endorsed a revised plan of management for the park. We heard Senator Puplick refer to the plan many times during his contribution. He failed to mention, however, its purpose. Its purpose is to show all Australia that we are prepared to take the lead in protecting one of the great heritage areas of our nation, that we were not worried about the gibes of the Opposition and the complaints of the mining lobby. Senator Townley —The left wing is screwing your tail. Senator RICHARDSON —I have not heard Senator Evans and Mr Cohen referred to as the left wing, nor do I consider myself the Party's leading lefty. However, one does not need to be a leading lefty to support the cause of the environment. That is what I hope I am doing tonight. Members of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources were taken through a number of sites. We were shown where there were some gold prospects and where there were some platinum prospects and I have no doubt that in the area in which this plan allows mining there are a number of very prospective sites. There are a number of places where hundreds of millions of dollars could be earned relatively easily. That is why the Australian Labor Party chose to make the compromise-not to say no mining anywhere, ever, but to say that in the most important areas of stage 1 and stage 2 we draw a line and say there will be no more; and in relation to stage 3 we say that there can be some mining subject of course to some strict conditions, as well it should be. We are told by the mining industry that it does not mind and is happy with strict environmental conditions so I cannot understand why it is so upset, or even why Senator Crichton-Browne is upset. Senator Crichton-Browne —I am not upset. I feel sorry for your getting done. Senator RICHARDSON —From what I heard about the Western Australian Liberal Party elections, I think the honourable senator suffered a greater defeat than I did. Senator Chaney was the winner, was he not? The problem that we now have to address is the importance of assessing just how great the mineral resources are and just how many claims there can be. Senator Townley —The plan does not allow for that. Senator RICHARDSON —I again ask the honourable senator to take a deep breath. Over the next few weeks and months the Government has to give further consideration to that. Environmentalists and the mining industry itself have to be consulted, and over time the Party will make its decision. The Government will be able to tell us the exact, final position in regard to stage 3. But what we have already been told in regard to stage 1 and stage 2 is what the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Wilderness Society and all the hundreds of environmental groups around the country have been campaigning for for years. We have once again delivered the goods. That reminds me that I was attacked viciously by Senator Puplick earlier, and he referred to woodchipping in Tasmania. The Government has a committee examining what will happen with logging in heritage areas in Tasmania, and if genuine heritage areas are to be invaded by the bulldozers I have no doubt that Government will take action and cancel woodchipping licences. We will not put up with heritage values being destroyed by anybody. I hope Senator Townley gives Robin Gray the message. Senator Crichton-Browne —This is the greatest appeal to the pinkos since Barry Unsworth appealed to public opinion. Senator RICHARDSON —That was highly intelligent. I can understand now what happened in Western Australia. I refer now to what the coalition has done on Kakadu in recent times. According to the general cross-sectional view, not only are we going to have an argument about what we can do in stage 3 but also we would be opening the door to stages 1 and 2 if that lot over there got their way. In the end we have to wonder why this debate is on and what it is all about. The Opposition knows it cannot get its motion through the Senate; so to whom is it appealing? Would it always be the case that the mining companies completely and absolutely pull the strings? When will those opposite just once have the courage to say no? We over here have stopped waiting with bated breath; we have stopped hanging by the neck. We have not given up. It is obvious that the mining lobby controls the Liberal Party and the National Party completely and utterly. It gets whatever it wants from them. Senator Siddons —Doesn't it control the Labor Party as well? Senator RICHARDSON —We are the ones who have taken up the cudgels. We have done something about it. We are proud of our record. What Mr Hawke has done is to protect the environment. He has done what the great majority of Australians who elected him wanted him to do-to make sure that this great country stays great. Senator Alston —What did Evans write to Copeman on? Senator RICHARDSON —I would have thought that the mention of Copeman in respect of mining would have been difficult even for Senator Alston. The decision of Peko-Wallsend Ltd a couple of weeks ago to start exploration again in stage 2 is a disgraceful decision. It is, of course, meaningless and provocative because it gets nowhere. It will go round in a circle before it gets knocked off in the courts. It is another example of extremists running the Liberal Party of Australia. As a leading Victorian wet, I would have thought Senator Alston would be concerned about that. I would have thought that that would worry him because he has a lot more to fear from Andrew Hay than I have. The coalition, in saying that it would overturn the management plan, does not stop there. If we look at David Connolly's statement on Aboriginal affairs in recent times, we see that he has actually held a different view. In a couple of interviews he has been able to contradict himself but it seems to me that he is saying that he will not allow any mining in Aboriginal areas in stage 3. That is certainly not the view put here tonight by Senator Kilgariff, and I take it that it is not the view of the Liberal Party as a whole. There are many sacred sites; there are not just one or two; they are scattered all over the place. If one goes to those sacred sites one can look at some of the superb rock art and the other sites that are there. One very quickly gets the idea that for those people living there the land is all. Obviously, in any compromise the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory must lose out a bit and they do when it comes to allowing any prospectivity in the stage 3 areas. But the facts are that, if we were to tear up the plan for stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3, a great many Aboriginal people in Kakadu would be robbed of their heritage. For them, it is not just a matter of the environment; it is not just a matter of nice waterways and all the rest of it. For them it is their whole life-their culture, their history and their future. The Australian Labor Party and this Government are not prepared to throw that away. Once again, we see in this debate the contrast not just in style but in content between the Liberal Party and ourselves. If we look at the future of Kakadu, we should not concentrate solely on mining. The argument is not just about mining; it has to be about tourism also. Where I start to differ from Senator Mason in his contribution is that I have no doubt that tourism has a very great role to play in the future of Kakadu-in stages 1, 2 and 3, but in particular in stages 1 and 2 where so many tourists have flocked in recent years. There is absolutely no doubt that we need more facilities, better roads and to encourage more people to go there. There is absolutely no question that in stage 3 that will happen. As I have said, the area is not all scrub; it is not all clapped out buffalo country. There is some magnificent territory there. We have to make sure that ordinary Australian people will get a look at it and be able to enjoy it. If the whole area becomes one big pit, who will want to go there? We have to have some sort of balance. I say to Senator Townley, who has been interjecting, that balance is not something for which he is famed. If we are to get balance in Kakadu with the problems there at the moment, we have to ensure that we encourage tourism and its development. As far as mining is concerned, in stage 3 we should look at mining project by project. We should make sure that the environment is protected. We should make sure that the values of the Aboriginal people in the area are protected. In that way we will guarantee that thousands more Australians will visit there than visit there now. That is what we are about. It is not something about which we can apologise or should apologise. We will not preclude the opportunity of benefits to the country as a whole just for the exploitation of tourism of Kakadu or of mining in stage 3. One cannot just open everything up. There has to be some sense of responsibility, even on the Opposition side of the chamber. I know that the Senate is the repository for the hard Right of the Liberal Party. Senator Alston —Make up your mind. Senator RICHARDSON —There are some exceptions. Senator Alston replaced a hard Right senator, and he is one. One sees Senator Walters, Senator Watson, Senator Crichton-Browne and Senator Townley-there are plenty of them. There is also-I will not say who, Mr Acting Deputy President. The hard Right is over there. Senator Watson —Me, the hard Right? Senator RICHARDSON —Absolutely. Even Senator Watson would have to take the view that an area such as Kakadu is exceptional. It is not just another bit of the country. It is important. It has national and international significance. Senator Townley —Rubbish! Senator RICHARDSON —Even Senator Watson would want to give it a go. Senator Townley says `Rubbish', but the fact that stage 2 is to be listed for the World Heritage will demonstrate to the whole of the world, not just to him and a few people in this chamber, the tremendous significance that it has. It is significant not just to us but to so many thousands of people around the world. When looking for Press reaction to government decisions, I always go straight away to something at the heart of the Fairfax empire-the Melbourne Age. That paper is not known as a socialist rag. It is not part of the Labor Party's apparatus. An editorial on 18 September 1986 in the Age stated: The proposal which Cabinet has endorsed steers a line neatly and cleverly between both positions. It has been recognised that what the Labor Government was able to come up with only a month or so ago was a compromise between the hard line environmental position and the hard line mining position, which is winning respect all over the country. In that same paper on 17 September the Government again was praised for enlarging the boundaries of the park into Gimbat and Goodparla. Senator Townley —How are we going to afford to pay for it all; to keep it under control? Senator RICHARDSON —All the people on this side of the chamber want to ask all the people on that side of the chamber how they will pay for any of their promises. Honourable senators opposite have not told us a thing. Fortunately, in the case of the Hawke Government, everything we are doing is out on the table. Senator Puplick —Ha, ha, ha! Senator RICHARDSON —That is why Senator Puplick will not be re-elected. In conclusion, this debate crystalises the differences between the two parties. It shows where we stand on a crucial issue facing all Australians. Either one takes the odd stand and ensures the protection of one of the most important parts of our environment, or one does what the Liberal Party does-lie down like craven dogs in the path of the mining industry. We will not do that. We will stand and fight, and on Kakadu we have drawn the line. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(10.29) —The Australian Democrats give guarded support to the Kakadu plan of management. I say `guarded support' because the plan at least says that there will be no mining in stages 1 and 2 of the national park. However, we do know that the Government has not been able to get the mining companies out of stage 2 even yet and there are exclusions even in stage 1, where we have the Ranger mine and the Jabiluka operation still continuing. The Government claims that Peko Mineral Exploration Ltd can explore in stage 3 of the park, but it is not clear whether the permission to explore gives a natural right to mine. That is a matter that the Government has not yet addressed and the facts of the matter are that it will be before the courts very shortly. Debate interrupted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.31) —Tonight I wish to speak briefly on road safety. I believe, naturally, that road safety in Australia is a matter of great concern. I take note, too, of the road safety leaflet that has been prepared on the cost of road crashes. No doubt many honourable senators here tonight have perused that very illuminating paper on road safety. But I wish to speak very briefly tonight on one aspect of road safety-radar detectors. Honourable senators and other people who do a lot of air travel would have noted quite a lot of advertising material relating to the availability of radar detectors. As I have said, I believe that road safety is a matter of great concern; it is a community responsibility. At the moment we are endeavouring to educate road users in the best ways of safe conduct on the roads. One such way is to obey the law. Laws exist, of course, to assist in road safety. The purpose of road safety is to cut down on road carnage. If our roads were as safe as our skies we would have little to worry about. As I have said, I, like most honourable senators, spend a great deal of time flying. It is very comforting for parliamentarians and the people of Australia to know that Australia's domestic aviation record leads the world. It comes as an irony to find that our three major domestic carriers were recently, and perhaps still are, advertising car radar detectors in their in-flight magazines. I refer to Ansett Airlines of Australia, East-West Airlines Ltd and Trans Australia Airlines, which has been newly named Australian Airlines. It is very interesting to note that in-flight magazines contain full page glossy coloured advertisements aimed at car enthusiasts. They present the opportunity to buy radar detectors. Radar detectors, of course, exist to assist car users to break the law. One could really say that the airlines, which are proud of their air safety, are assisting the carnage on the roads through promoting the sale of radar detectors which, as I said, exist to circumvent police. In reality, they are aimed at those who want to break the law and avoid the penalty. A portable model of radar detector is now available. Honourable senators will realise what I am talking about: The radar detector is an instrument which is fitted to a car and picks up the police radar ahead and, by a signal within the car, it indicates to the driver that he should slow down and drive within speed limits. There is a portable model of radar detector for the busy executive traveller. When he travels interstate he can put the device, if not in his own car, in a hire car. I suppose that many honourable senators have noticed, as I have, the advertisements in in-flight magazines. The magazines are entertaining and informative and provide a diversion on flights to and from Canberra. I believe in-flight magazines have been marred by the inclusion of such an advertisement. I took it upon myself to write to the chairmen of the three domestic airline companies-Ansett Airlines of Australia, East-West Airlines Ltd and Australian Airlines-to express my concern at the advertisements being placed in the magazines. I pointed out that the speed laws are there to make the roads safer for all motorists. As I said before, the irony is that the airlines-with their excellent safety records-by having such advertisements in their magazines, are actually encouraging people to break the law on the ground in their vehicles. So I urged that the airlines reconsider placing such advertisements in their in-flight magazines in the future. To the very great credit of the airlines involved all three have replied that they would not place the advertisements in the magazines in the future. They said that apparently the advertisements were placed by the advertising departments of the companies involved and were accepted on a commercial basis. The Chairman of Ansett, Sir Peter Abeles, the General Manager Corporate Relations of East-West Airlines, John Mulcair, and the Chairman of Australian Airlines, Neil Smith, on their attention being drawn to these advertisements, have all agreed that the advertisements are not appropriate for placement in their respective magazines. I believe it is important that the attention of the public should be drawn to the fact that, whilst the magazines of the three Australian airlines were carrying those advertisements detrimental to road safety, the airlines have now agreed that the advertisements will be withdrawn. I ask that three letters from the companies be incorporated in Hansard. One is from Ansett Transport Industries Ltd by Sir Peter Abeles, the second one is from Mr Neil Smith, Chairman of Australian National Airlines Commission, and the third is from Mr John Mulcair, General Manager Corporate Relations, East-West Airlines. Leave granted. The letters read a follows- ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED (Incorporated in Victoria) 501 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Australia. Telephone 668 1334 Telex AA30085 Office of Joint Managing Director Sir Peter Abeles...3rd September, 1986 Senator B. F. Kilgariff, P.O. Box 4795, Darwin, N.T. 5794. Dear Senator Kilgariff, I am very grateful to you for bringing to my attention the advertisement for radar detectors featured in the August edition of `Panorama' magazine. I was unaware of this and feel as strongly as you do in regard to this form of advertising. Rest assured I will act immediately to ensure that this advertisement does not appear in future editions of `Panorama'. I am surprised that there is no legislation banning such advertising which I have often seen in overseas magazines and have reacted in exactly the same manner. Many thanks for alerting me to the problem. Yours sincerely, E. H. P. Abeles AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES 50 Franklin Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 Australia PO Box 2806AA Melbourne Victoria 3001 Australia Telephone (03) 666 3033 Telegrams `Transair' Melbourne 10th September, 1986. Senator B. F. Kilgariff, 6th Floor, Hooker Building, 47 Mitchell Street, Darwin, N.T. 5794. Dear Senator Kilgariff, Thank you for your letter of the 1st September in relation to the radar detection advertisement that appeared in our in-flight magazine. I appreciate and share your concern that we should appear to be associated with what is essentially an instrument to protect an offender who is breaking the law. Our people accepted the advertisement on a commercial, rather than an ethical judgment, however, as a matter of policy, we have decided not to accept any further advertisements of this kind for future editions. Thank you for your interest and incidentally thank you for being on our service. With kind regards, Yours sincerely, Neil A. Smith Chairman EAST-WEST AIRLINES East-West Airlines Ltd (Inc. in N.S.W.) East-West Airlines (Operations) Ltd. (Inc. in N.S.W.) Central Square, 19th Level, 323-339 Castlereagh Street, Sydney, 2000, N.S.W. Australia Telephone: 219-5111 Cables: ``Airspeed'' Telex City: AA22610 Telex Airport: AA27121 September 26, 1986 Senator B. F. Kilgariff, 6th Floor, Hooker Building, 47 Mitchell Street, Darwin, N.T. 5794. Dear Senator Kilgariff, Your letter regarding the publication of an advertisement for radar detectors in our airline's in-flight magazine has been referred to my office by my Managing Director, Mr. Jon Hartley. East-West's in flight magazine is supplied to the airline on a contract basis by a commercial publisher. I have taken up the matter of your concern in regard to the radar detector advertisement with him and he has agreed that it does not meet areas of social responsibility which we have defined for him in the magazine contract. Therefore he has agreed to our suggestion that no such further advertisements will be run in the magazine. It certainly was not the intention of East-West magazines to present to the public any advertisement which would encourage them to break the law of any State or Territory. A new system has been put into place which allow far greater control over and scrutiny of the advertising matter which will be placed in our magazine. Thank you for bringing the matter to our attention and I trust that it has now been resolved to your satisfaction. Yours faithfully, John Mulcair General Manager, Corporate Relations Senator KILGARIFF —I sincerely thank the gentlemen concerned for having taken the decision not to carry the advertisements. The road toll in Australia is horrendous and I believe that everyone must do all possible to reduce it. These airlines have acknowledged their moral and ethical responsibilities and have given a lead to others. I note recent stories that the New South Wales Government plans to outlaw radar detectors and I hope that the other States of Australia will do so too. It is a commendable move which should be followed by legislatures in other States. It is estimated that some 50,000 car drivers now use these detectors in one State alone-New South Wales. As I have indicated, these detectors are to enable people to go around the law. What they are actually doing of course is assisting in the carnage on the roads. How can the use of these detectors by 50,000 car drivers in New South Wales be justified when one considers the causing of deaths and injury and the cost involved with public hospitals, police surveillance, police action, et cetera? Indeed, the Department of Transport's figures show that road crashes, fatalities and the carnage on the roads now cost the Australian community an estimated $3 billion a year. In a typical road crash people are killed or injured, vehicles are damaged or destroyed and roadside equipment or buildings may also be damaged or destroyed. Restoring people to good health or looking after them for the rest of their lives, as well as repairing damaged property, all costs the public a good deal of money. In 1984 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety produced a report concluding that speed was ranked third as the most important factor in road crashes. It found that while speed of itself is not the cause of crashes, the higher the speed of the vehicle the greater is the potential for serious injury or death from any mishap; if speed could be reduced there would be fewer and less serious crashes. That was the view of that Committee. Speed limits are there for all of us who use the roads-again this was the Committee's view-and the police use radars to detect those who are prepared to endanger their own lives and the lives of others. The report went on to point out that we should not sanction the use of radar detectors, which are used to avoid the penalties of speeding. It is incredible that a firm can assist in causing carnage on the roads, often resulting in deaths, and that that firm with impunity can advertise in magazines and sell this death-dealing equipment. Again, I congratulate the three airlines on giving a lead to the rest of the community in taking the decision not to promote radar detectors in their in-flight publications and thus to assist in reducing the amount of carnage on our roads. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(10.43) —In this adjournment debate I wish to deal with what in an industrial relations sense is the flavour of the month. In an earlier debate on a matter of urgency Senator Chaney made clear that in the last 12 months the Opposition parties had discovered work practices. Through the actions of a whole range of companies, most notably Peko-Wallsend Ltd, the issue of work practices has grabbed the headlines in practically every media outlet. It is a matter to which I want to draw attention, and perhaps at a later stage I shall look at the matter from a different perspective when dealing with what the most notorious company in this country is doing in the area of work practices in the work-place. It was strange to hear Senator Chaney speak of work practices having been discovered by the Opposition just over a year ago. I would remind the Senate that work practices have been with us ever since man has worked for a living. What have evolved from the system are restrictive work practices. On a future occasion I shall have something to say on that topic and how it applies within the Peko-Wallsend empire. It is worth remembering what happened at one of the subsidiaries of Peko-Wallsend Ltd in Sydney on Friday when 500 workers were tossed on to the scrap-heap. However, the company I want to talk about tonight is not Peko-Wallsend, but another large corporation within Australia, Lend Lease Corporation Ltd. On reading the Business Review Weekly magazine of 17 October this year, I found a very interesting article entitled `Why work practices are not all bad'. The article refers to a study which Lend Lease, through its subsidiary company Civil and Civic Pty Ltd, had commissioned from Dr Vernon Ireland, head of the School of Business Studies of the New South Wales Institute of Technology. The study found that Civil and Civic is a far more efficient builder than 10 of America's biggest construction companies-companies, incidentally, in the United States which live under a largely deregulated union scene. The study documents that, in the Australian context of a highly regulated society, Civil and Civic can perform as well or better than its peer group in the United States in a deregulated environment. Stuart Hornery, described in the article as the hard-nosed Managing Director of Lend Lease, is reported in the article as having said: In our opinion there is no advantage in deregulation. It is better to have creative management. The quality of life of employees in Australia is better than in the US in a very tough industry-and we're competitive. The article continues to point out that less regulation has a cost, and it is a cost that is not always shouldered by the builder. For example, it found that in the United States, American builders could use footpaths and streets as part of a building site, to the cost of the local council and the local community, and at enormous inconvenience to the public. I again quote from the article: Partly because of the higher building and safety standards, which are among the highest in the world, and tougher work practices negotiated by unions, Australian builders have been forced to be more innovative and better managers. That was said by Mr Ireland, the author of the study. Mr Hornery, the Managing Director of Lend Lease, is quoted as saying: Australia . . . enjoys a `good compromise'. If we deregulated, we might reduce our time of completion from 84 per cent (of the time American builders take on comparable projects as the study showed) to 72 per cent, but at what cost? On a comparable project in America, six people would have been killed against none here. I couldn't sleep at night knowing we were working in some of the sorts of conditions Americans accept and which are patently dangerous. There's got to be some price on human life. It is gratifying that we can be compassionate and care about people enough to put up safety nets and use safe work practices and still be considerably more efficient than those who don't care or try to cut corners. I will continue to quote from the very impressive article, which I commend to every senator and member. Hornery states: We recognise Civil and Civic is not the norm of Australian builders. We are much more consultative with unions, much more innovative in employee management and building design. And we're also involved in the building process much earlier than most builders. For instance, we introduced superannuation for all employees in 1972, which puts us 15 years ahead of most of the rest of the industry. The new flavour of the month is employee ownership, which we've practised for a long time, and employees now own 27 per cent of Lend Lease. The net result is that our guys are enthusiastic, which flows into better working practice. Our clients know we get jobs done on time and to quality. ``While we have tended to lead in many of these practices, much of the building industry here is as conservative as the Americans. It has required legislative and union pressure to introduce some standards. ``Our peer group asks how we can give away profit-sharing to employees, We've shown it works to co-operate. We're a blue-chip stock here and now this report shows we're competitive with America's best. ``The adversarial relationship between labor and capital is a myth as far as we are concerned. Outside government, Civil and Civic is probably Australia's biggest employer of operatives (carpenters and labourers), yet we have about the least disputation. We don't have personnel departments here because people management is part of every manager's job-all the way up from short pants. ``One of the reasons we build so quickly is that, aside from good planning, our investment in safety and employee relations pays off in reduced downtime. ``The Americans' lack of regard for employees and safety could be termed exploitation of labor. And as this report shows, it does not pay. The extent of unionisation in the US is about half here. But union employees tend to be of higher quality and more productive than the non-unionised. That's a generalisation, but Americans have not been able to introduce some of the more innovative building techniques, we believe, because their labor does not have the skills,'' Hornery says. The study compares 22 US and Civil and Civic office and hotel projects. The lesson in this very useful article is the comparison it makes between what is happening in Lend Lease or Civil and Civic and what is happening within the Peko Wallsend empire, particularly at Robe River in the Pilbara. At Robe River, as a result of the action of Mr Charles Copeman, of the New Right, a decision was taken to sack 1,100 workers and toss them on to the scrap heap, all in the interests of good management, management's right to manage and destroying inefficient work practices. The company gave a list of work practices which it had not even calculated and it was not in a position to show these to the Industrial Commission of Western Australia when it asked for them. The company was not able to do so either when the Commission demanded the list some two or three weeks later. The comprehensive list, which the company says continues to grow, has still not been presented to the Industrial Commission in Western Australia. In the past three or four months Robe River has been a scene of confrontation and disputation, bordering on violence in many cases. The economies of both Australia and Western Australia have been disrupted because of the vanguard actions of Peko Wallsend in its quest to destroy trade unionism in this country. I do not believe that these tactics will work. Innovative companies, such as Civil and Civic and Lend Lease and many others, will prove to the Copemans and the Hays of this world that trade unions are responsive, responsible and will exercise all the influence they can in the interests of this country and its people. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.54) —On 11 August this year the Session Clerk of the Presbyterian Church of St Andrew in Canberra wrote to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) expressing the church's views on the film Hail Mary. I shall seek to incorporate the letter but I wish to refer to a few parts of it. The letter invites the Attorney-General to fulfil his duty as the responsible Minister to have the film withdrawn because the church regards the film as in breach of the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations. It claims that the film is both pornographic and blasphemous and there are many other issues that it deals with in the letter. It was certainly a surprise to me to find that the reply came not from the Attorney-General himself, not from the Secretary to the Department, but from a secretary on behalf of a secretary for the Secretary to the Department. It was about fourth hand. That letter states that the film is not blasphemous or indecent as classified by the Film Censorship Board. It went on to state that the Attorney had received some 18,000 signatures on a petition inviting him to act and that the Attorney-General wrote to the Chief Censor requesting a review of the Censorship Board decision. However, the letter also points out that the Board has no power to review its decision. Other matters are set out in the reply. It also states that the New South Wales legislation enables the Attorney-General of that State to ask for a review. I would have thought that in the circumstances the Attorney-General might have written to the New South Wales Attorney to express some views on the matter. I also wonder whether he has taken any decision to review the legislation to enable a review of the decision of the Film Censorship Board. However, his letter does not convey that. The letter to me from the Church of St Andrew states that the church regards the Attorney's reply as unsatisfactory, and I agree with it in terms of the way in which the letter is replied to and its content. I suggest to the Attorney-General that perhaps he ought to consider a means of review of decisions of the Film Censorship Board so that a matter such as this can be reviewed, and that in this instance he write to the New South Wales Attorney-General inviting him to consider whether the classification ought to be reviewed. I hope the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) will convey these views to the Attorney-General. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter from the Presbyterian Church of St Andrew to the Attorney-General dated 11 August 1986 and the reply sent on behalf of the Attorney-General dated 11 September 1986. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- Presbyterian Church of Australia CHURCH OF ST. ANDREW CANBERRA P.O. Box E61 Queen Victoria Terrace 2600 11 August 1986 The Hon. Lionel Bowen, M.P. Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General Parliament House CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Mr Bowen, I am writing on behalf of the Church of Saint Andrew, Canberra to protest most strongly at the admission to Australia of the film, Hail Mary, and to request you to fulfil your duty as the responsible Minister to have it withdrawn immediately from public exhibition in accord with the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations. From reports and critiques in the media, Hail Mary clearly contains substantial material which is born pornographic and blasphemous. As such, we consider it to be offensive in the extreme to Christians, both to those who attend church regularly and those who maintain their Christian faith and values less publicly. That Hail Mary is intended as an intellectually and artistically serious film is not viewed by us as having ``redeeming merit''. Rather, such serious intention, or pretence, is viewed as compounding the offence. Neither are we persuaded by the sophistry and the vain intellectual affectation of those, including the occasional clergyman, who find such merit in the film. It is plainly offensive. Indeed, if Hail Mary is acceptable to the Classification Board and to yourself, it is very difficult to imagine what, if anything, would be prohibited by them or you. As the film is pornographic and blasphemous its admission would appear to be contrary to the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations. We consider, both as Christians and Australian citizens, that it is the duty of those who hold office under the law, including censors and Ministers, to uphold the law and not to substitute for it their own personal and arbitrary rules. We earnestly hope that, as a Minister of the Crown, you have such an understanding of your office and will act accordingly. Lest you should think our objection to Hail Mary is intended to limit freedom of expression, we wish to make our position clear on this matter. We consider that such freedom is vital to both Christianity and to democracy. We would not wish to inhibit discussion, including dramatic presentation of issues, on religious (or political) matters except that such discussion should avoid offence. Indeed, we would argue that those who are genuinely serious about such matters, and who have genuine artistic merit, would not find it helpful to give such offence. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion, therefore, that Hail Mary is devised to shock and to be sensational through calculated offence on most sacred matters. We ask that you act with integrity and urgency in this matter. Yours sincerely D. A. WHITE Session Clerk ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT Robert Garran Offices National Circuit Barton A.C.T. 2600 Please quote: Your ref: 86/9214 11 September 1986 D. White Church of St Andrew P.O. Box E61 Queen Victoria Terrace Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Dear Sir/Madam, The Attorney-General, Mr Bowen has asked me to reply to your recent letter concerning the exhibition of the film ``Hail Mary''. The film was examined by the Film Censorship Board and this Board unanimously was of the opinion that the film was neither blasphemous nor indecent.The Board classified it as an ``R'' film. The Attorney-General has subsequently received many representations objecting to the registration and exhibition of the film, and he received a deputation from objectors who presented him with a petition of some 18,000 signatures expressing deep concern at the reported content of the film. Mr Bowen forwarded this petition to the Chief Censor with a request that in view of the public interest would the Board have the opportunity to reconsider its decision and particularly address the issue of blasphemy as is relevant under Regulation 13 of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. The Board has sought advice as to its powers in respect of Mr Bowen's request, and advice has now been furnished that the Board does not have the power of review of its decisions. With respect to the issue of blasphemy, Mr Bowen advised that this issue requires an examination of the film in the light of principles developed by the courts on what constitutes blasphemy at law. This virtually places the Board in the position of a jury and, unless the Board is of the opinion that the film is blasphemous, that ground for refusing registration does not apply. The Attorney-General has received requests from a firm of solicitors that he grant his fiat to allow proceedings to be taken under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 concerning the licensing and registration of the film. The advice received casts considerable doubt that Mr Bowen could approve of such a request. A recent decision of the Federal Court, denied standing to two members of the Clergy who sought a review by the Court, of the Board's decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The New South Wales legislation under the film and Videotape Classification Act 1984 enables the Attorney-General of that State to apply to the Appeals Censor for a review of the classification of the film. Yours faithfully B. S. JEFFRESS for Secretary Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.57) —I will not keep the Senate for more than a couple of minutes. I draw to the attention of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), and I hope she will draw it to the attention of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), a letter I received from a constituent who was visited by an officer of the Department of Social Security in Hobart on 10 October. That officer asked her a considerable number of questions and details about her pension. Having answered all the questions and the officer having written down the answers, my constituent was asked to check the answers and initial each page, which she did. She was then asked to sign a declaration which, in part, stated: `I have been advised of my rights and obligations'. She had not been advised of her rights and obligations at all. She pointed this out to the officer and said that he had not mentioned those rights and obligations to her before he had asked her the questions. Nevertheless, she was asked to sign the declaration. Because she would have preferred not to answer one of the questions that had been put, she was very angry that she had not been told that there was no obligation on her to answer any of the questions at all if she preferred not to. She thought that the obligation in that declaration was that she was obliged to answer the questions, but she was told that this was not the case. In the declaration she crossed out the words which said that she had been told about her rights and obligations, but the answers to her questions were taken back to the Department by the officer. She suggested to me that it might not be a bad idea if people were treated in an honest fashion by the Department's officers. She pointed out that any perusal of her record would show that she had always acted in a very honest fashion regarding her pension entitlements but that the officer had not done likewise. She wondered whether people were ever told, before being asked the questions, that they had the right not to answer them if they so desired. I draw this matter to the attention of the Minister for Education and hope that she will be able to give me an explanation of how this occurred and whether it is a usual occurrence. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(11.00) —A number of matters have been raised in the adjournment debate tonight which I will refer to the appropriate Ministers. Senator Kilgariff raised matters concerning radar detection and road safety. Senator McKiernan made comments on work practices, particularly in relation to Lend Lease Corporation Ltd. Senator Reid sought to have views from an Australian Capital Territory churchman on film censorship conveyed to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and Senator Walters outlined a social security matter concerning one of her constituents. I will see that all those matters are referred to the Minister and they deal with them appropriately. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.01 p.m. The following paper was tabled: Health Insurance Act-Guidelines made by the Minister under sub-section 124H (1), together with explanatory statement, dated 30 September 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1053) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) How many calls were received from callers to the Priority One campaign. (2) How many of these did the Prime Minister answer. (3) Are the names, addresses and other personal details of the callers to the Priority One Phone-in still listed, or are the records kept of such details by either Camco Systems Pty Ltd or any Government agency or body; if so, why. (4) Is it the wish of the Government or the Australian Labor Party (ALP) to send these people ALP voting information at the time at the next election. (5) Is Camco Systems Pty Ltd still employed as consultants by the Government for any purpose; if so, for what purpose/s. (6) What are the total payments to Camco Systems Pty Ltd since 1 July 1985 and for what individual purposes. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 25,931 calls were received in the Priority One national phone-in. (2) The Prime Minister spoke to 127 callers on air. (3) No. (4) No. (5) Yes, for the provision of a National Drug Information Line, which comprises the receiving and processing of telephone calls to special 008 numbers and the mailing out of printed materials requested by callers. (6) Payments made to Camco Systems Pty Ltd since 1 July 1985 until 30 April 1986 are as follows: By the Department of Health, for the National Drug Information Line a total of $516,534.60 comprising $189,616.70 for establishment and setting up costs during February and March, $253,837.50 for the cost of calls received (to be paid to Telecom) and $73,080.40 for operating costs for April. By the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, $9,734.10 direct to Camco Systems Pty Ltd for the following purposes: Training course on Direct Marketing Presentation-$1,300 Work associated with the processing of the JOBSTART mailing list-$8,434.10 In addition, $87,248.69 was paid to Camco Systems Pty Ltd through SSB Advertising who had subcontracted Camco for collation and distribution of JOBSTART promotional material. Camco Systems Pty Ltd was sub-contracted by Chandler Hambleton and Mier to conduct the Priority One phone-in. (Chandler, Hambleton and Mier were contracted by the Government to conduct the Priority One campaign.) Chandler, Hambleton and Mier's budget for the phone-in included payment of $421,702 to Camco Systems for the phone-in. (Question No. 1221) Senator Archer asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 13 June 1986: When does the Government intend to produce a response to the Madigan Committee inquiry `A Space Policy for Australia' completed in June 1985. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government's decision on the Madigan Report was jointly announced by myself and my colleague the honourable Barry Jones MP, Minister for Science, on 22 September 1986. A copy of the press statement and related material has been provided separately to the honourable senator. (Question No. 1278) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 19 August 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 Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) There have been three reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in my Department since 5 March 1983. These are as follows: Position number Position Former classification Present classification 2586 ... Division Head, Co-ordination and Management, Central Office Senior Executive Level 2 Senior Executive Level 3 2361 ... First Assistant Director, Resource Assessment Division, Bureau of Mineral Resources Senior Executive Level 3 Senior Executive Level 4 1027 ... Director, Bureau of Mineral Resources Senior Executive Level 5 Senior Executive Level 6 (2) The dates and salary details are as follows: Position number Date reclassified Salary variation $ 2586... 17.4.1985 4,289 2361... 19.7.1985 4,489 1027... 21.6.1984 4,228