Tuesday, 2 December 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That there is a need for an Independent and Multi-cultural Broadcasting Corporation to give a firm legislative and financial basis for the SBS Network. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should Pass Senator Vigor's Bill with all expediency And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Haines (from 119 citizens) and Vigor (from 113 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned concerned citizens of Australia shows that: the Joint Space Defence Research Facility at Pine Gap is a vital part of United States plans to fight a nuclear war, thus implicating Australia in these immoral plans; spy satellites such as those linked to Pine Gap are used to spy on both allied and non-allied countries, including Australia; these activities of Pine Gap are a destabilising influence in a dangerously uneasy world, raising the level of fear and distrust between nations; the significance of Pine Gap to the United States of America is such that it is a prime nuclear target; Pine Gap desecrates an Aboriginal dreaming track. Your petitioners therefore strongly urge that the Australian Government give to the government of the United States of America the one year's notice required to terminate the lease on the Joint Space Defence Research Facility at Pine Gap. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 150 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: (i) the welfare of many employees and their families depends upon a healthy, expanding gold mining industry; (ii) the success of many small businesses in gold mining towns also depends upon the continued profitability of gold mining and prospecting operations; (iii) the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining and prospecting represents a threat to the profitability of these industries and will therefore cause widespread unemployment and depression throughout the whole gold mining industry. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Government to reject any proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining or prospecting thereby ensuring that the spectacular growth of the industry over recent years is continued. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 39 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: (i) the fringe benefits tax will place enormous cost increases on employers throughout Australia; (ii) in so doing, the fringe benefits tax will raise the cost of employing labour, particularly in remote locations and it will inevitably worsen the already high level of unemployment in Australia; (iii) much of the cost of the tax will be carried by employees as employers reduce benefits; and (iv) the cost of the tax will harm small business particularly as these businesses will be unable to pass on the cost of the tax and as a result many may be forced to close. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Government to repeal this unfair tax before it damages Australian business and thereby reduces the standard of living of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 20 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: Whereas the fringe benefits tax will place a costly and unfair burden on independent schools. The fringe benefits tax will have the most damaging impact upon schools which provide boarding accommodation for children as they are also required to provide accommodation for staff members to live in and supervise the boarders. Independent schools have limited resources and this additional impost will ultimately have to be passed on to parents, many of whom are already heavily committed to the financing of their children's education. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Parliament to recognise that the future of Australia depends upon the education given to its children and to exempt schools from the operation of the fringe benefits tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that any decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to reduce the local content of the programme, the `Country Hour', would represent yet another severe blow to Western Australian rural people; that even under current programming Western Australian country people receive little locally produced radio, and in view of the inefficiencies in the operations of the ABC disclosed by the Auditor-General, your petitioners call upon the Government to improve the efficient operation of the ABC before it reduces the local content of important rural programs such as the `Country Hour'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 14 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: Whereas the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985: (i) does not include many of the rights which are fundamental to Australian society such as the right to own property and the right not to join a trade union; (ii) by virtue of the extremely wide powers which it will give to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, will take away many of our traditional rights such as the right to legal representation, the right to be confronted by one's accuser and the right to be heard in public; and (iii) will therefore change many of the basic aspects of Australian life without people being given the opportunity to decide the Bill's fate at a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate will reject the Bill of Rights in its present or any future form. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 37 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from eight citizens). Petitions received. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting with pleasure that Senator Sheil, a National Party Senator from Queensland, has become a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, and will be receiving this award in London later, congratulates him on obtaining this well deserved honour. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name for three sitting days hence, for the disallowance of the Quarantine (Animals) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1986 No. 283. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, contingent upon the order of the day for the consideration of the ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill 1986 being called on, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the following motion being moved and having effect: That the Order of the Day relating to the consideration of the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1986 and the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 be called on forthwith, that those Bills be considered together with the ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill 1986 at every stage, and that the Questions for the several stages of the passage of the Bills be put separately in respect of each Bill. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the finding of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts into the ACTION bus service, which shows ACTION conducts a reliable and comfortable service that is generally of a high standard, but points out that there are significant problems which prevent it maximising efficiency and accountability; (b) notes that the Report recommends that steps be taken to form ACTION into a Ministerially accountable Authority to serve the public transport needs of Canberra; (c) draws the Federal Government's attention to the Report's references to: (i) ACTION's performance standards, (ii) inadequate information systems, and (iii) the problems with fare collection; and (d) urges the Government to take immediate steps to implement the Committee's findings. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses its deep regret at the Federal Government's decision to support vital loans through the International Monetary Fund to help prop up the economy of Chile under the Pinochet regime; (b) notes that other Western Governments, unlike Australia, either abstained from voting, or voted against the proposal in protest against Chile's military Government, widely acknowledged in the international community as the most violent and repressive in South America; (c) regrets that Australian diplomats have had to work overtime to explain to other democratic countries Australia's extraordinary decision; and (d) calls on the Government to take the steps necessary to make amends for this preposterous and embarrassing decision. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) for its shabby treatment of its lone female representative, Anne Warner, who could not make it on to the front bench because of a factional deal; (b) notes with concern the suppression of Queensland women by the ALP who only returned a token female to State Parliament and refused to endorse any other women candidates in winnable seats; (c) congratulates the 4 Queensland National Party women candidates-Family Services Minister Yvonne Chapman, Leisha Harvey, Dianne Macauley and Beryce Nelson-who were elected to State Parliament; and (d) calls on the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to request the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to investigate the repressive and unenlightened actions of the Queensland branch of the ALP. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Report on the Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays for 1987-88 has not yet been presented to the Parliament, yet the House of Representatives has risen and as a result will not be given an opportunity to debate the Report until 17 February 1987; (b) further notes that the Federal Government has not released its forward estimates for revenue since March 1983, using the excuse that it is not in the public interest to do so because the figures are inaccurate, misleading, unreliable and, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said, are quite illusory, which refers in particular to the false and discredited figure of $9.6 billion, which is still used by some Government Ministers, who discredit themselves by so doing; and (c) calls on the Government to release immediately the Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays for next year so that the Senate can give them appropriate consideration before the end of the 1986 Budget sittings. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators and I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Department of Education-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 2. States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983-statement of financial assistance granted to each State in respect of 1984-pursuant to section 33 of the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983. 3. Child Migrant Education 1985-86-report by the Minister for Education-pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971. 4. Department of Aviation-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to section 29 of Air Navigation Act 1920 and sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 5. Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board-Annual Report 1985-86. 6. Christmas Island Services Corporation-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to section 27 of the Services Corporation Ordinance 1984. 7. Civil Disobedience and the Use of Arrest as Punishment: Some Human Rights Issues-Human Rights Commission Report-pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. 8. Attorney-General's Department-Office of Parliamentary Counsel-Annual Reports 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922 and section 16a of the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1971. 9. Security Appeals Tribunal-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to sub-section 83 (2) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979. 10. Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction-Law Reform Commission Report-pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. 11. Australian Industry and Technology Council-Annual Summary of Proceedings 1985-86. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That Government Business, notices of motion Nos 1 to 3 be postponed till 4 December 1986. Debate resumed from 1 December, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Motion (by Senator Sanders for Senator Haines) proposed: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Haines moving the following motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate: That the Order of the Day relating to the consideration of the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Bill 1986 be called on immediately after consideration of the Order of the Day relating to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill 1986. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.10) —Mr President-- The PRESIDENT —This is a suspension motion, Senator Evans. Senator GARETH EVANS —Nonetheless, we can debate it? The PRESIDENT —Yes. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have not had any notice of this matter from the Australian Democrats. I do not think it is a motion that can reasonably be supported. It is the desire, as I am well aware, of the Democrats to ensure that their motion about uranium sales to France gets an airing in this chamber. They will have an opportunity to do that in an amendment, which is in order, to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill which is before the Parliament now and which will be dealt with in the Committee stage quite soon, I hope. Under those circumstances, I do not think there is any justification-in terms of ensuring the Democrats the right, which they no doubt want to exercise, to have their particular point of view expressed-for taking procedures the extra stage and bringing on Senator Sanders's Bill. No doubt if his amendment to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill is passed in the Committee stage a question will arise at some appropriate stage as to when his Bill ought to be debated, but that question is wholly hypothetical at this stage. Senator Haines —So you are saying in advance that you are not going to support the amendment; so there is no need to discuss our Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS —That question can be determined at the appropriate time. No rights will be put at risk by Senator Sanders's Bill not proceeding at this particular stage. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.12) —The Opposition is entirely opposed to the motion that has been moved by Senator Sanders at this stage. The Senate is debating the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. The Government wishes to implement that Treaty into legislation. We are in the middle of that debate. It is a most important debate. The Democrats propose to move amendments in the Committee stage which will raise this particular issue. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever in bringing forward a Bill which Senator Sanders gave notice of some time ago but which is not able to be debated at this stage of the session. This applies just as much to the Opposition as it does to the Democrats because Government business is now taking precedence over private members' business. This is a patent attempt by Senator Sanders and the Democrats to get around a rule which they have adopted-we have all adopted-for the sake of completing this session with reasonable expedition. For those reasons, the Opposition will support the Government in this matter. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.13) —in reply-The reason I brought the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Bill up at this time is that it should have been debated in cognate form with the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill because the amendments which I am going to move are part of that Bill. This was a mechanism to bring this Bill up. The Liberal Party of Australia-the Opposition in general-refused to give us permission for a cognate debate, which would have been the logical way to do this. They dragged their feet as usual. That is why I have had to adopt this form. The reason I am taking this step at the moment is that already some of the people on the Labor Party side have said that passing my amendment, which would ban the shipment of uranium to France, would somehow delay the passage of this Bill. It might have to go back to the House of Representatives, but I am setting up the mechanism here so that my Bill, the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Bill, can be heard immediately after the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. The machinery will be in place so that those on the Labor Government side who find it difficult to vote for my amendment because of potential delays will not have that argument. Question put: That the motion (Senator Sanders's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael McClelland, DouglasBjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Newman, J. M. Coleman, R. N. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Townley, M. Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.21) —We are debating the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill 1986 and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill 1986. Last night in the few moments I had available to me I made two observations. Firstly, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty might be described as a Clayton's treaty. At least eight of the essential ingredients which would make up any substantial nuclear free zone treaty are not contained in the Treaty. Secondly, this is the one issue on which the people of Western Australia elected Senator Vallentine to represent them. Like the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which I described as a Clayton's treaty, one might describe Senator Vallentine as a Claytons senator for nuclear disarmament: She is the senator one has when one does not have a senator. In respect of the Treaty, what is of material consequence for Australia's defence and security and the security of the South Pacific region generally is the way the Treaty and the legislation impinge upon our allies, particularly on the United States of America, and specifically upon the integrity of ANZUS. One cannot but be struck by the words of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, who told us in his second reading speech: `The Treaty has been welcomed by the international community'. I do not know how Mr Hayden is able to draw that conclusion but if he is reflecting the views of the Eastern bloc countries, as distinct from those of the allies, I can quite understand where he has been looking for his congratulations. Two things ought to be remembered about the Soviet position. First, the Soviet Union does not now have any naval presence in the South Pacific which is deployed in the defined zone. The Treaty will not, therefore, interfere with, affect or inhibit the activities of the Soviets while, at the same time, potentially restricting and retarding America's deployment within the zone. It ought, however, to be clearly recognised and understood that in the areas which abut or adjoin the zone, such as the Indian Ocean, the South East Asian region generally and the north Pacific region particularly, the Soviet presence and strength are growing at an alarming rate. Thirty-five per cent of the Soviet fleet is now to be found in the north Pacific. This is the largest of the Soviets' four fleets. It comprises over 800 ships and submarines. In the north Pacific is the Soviet Union's largest naval base outside the Warsaw Pact, Cam Ranh Bay, one of the spoils of the Vietnam War. This enormous sea power, with the major logistical back-up capacity of Cam Ranh Bay, provides the Soviet Union with a tremendous potential to penetrate the southern and western Pacific. It is not without consequence that the Russian Pacific fleet, in the primary location of Cam Ranh Bay, is in no way inhibited, retarded or restricted by the provisions of the Treaty and it has enormous potential to penetrate south into what is loosely described as the nuclear free zone. Of course, apologists for the Soviets will respond with the comment that the Americans have the benefit of Subic Bay and the Clark air force base in the Philippines. However, as our shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Peacock, has said on a number of occasions, we ought not to be in the business of seeking parity or equality of strength, capacity or capability either within our region or within our immediate environment. It seems to me to be an obscene proposition that because the Americans have a base within the general geographic region, the Russians are also entitled to have one. That parity is reasonable and therefore we ought not to be complaining is a bizarre proposition. We ought to be concerned essentially about peace, our security and our defence. That can best be achieved by the strength of the presence of the United States within the region. One can hardly imagine our security being enhanced by reducing the capacity or the capability of our allies within the region. This Treaty's net effect would effectively be to enhance the Soviets' capacity for parity within the South Pacific region while in no way placing restrictions upon their strength or capabilities. Of course the net losers in the South Pacific nuclear free zone will be the Australians and their allies. The very integrity, the very effectiveness of the ANZUS alliance is under threat by virtue of the provisions of this Treaty. The Government must concede that when the enabling legislation is in place and is complete, this Treaty can and will, under certain circumstances, override the ANZUS alliance. Its very provisions are ultra vires the provisions of the ANZUS Treaty. By any measure ANZUS and Australia's substitute bilateral agreements which we might make in the future with the United States are the cornerstone of our security, as they have been for the last 30 years, since the inception of ANZUS. I remind the Senate of the words of the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, before the last Federal election, when he said of the ANZUS alliance: . . . is now a more constructive relationship than it has ever been in peacetime . . . We have made ANZUS more than it has ever been, a close, genuine partnership. I remind the Senate also of Mr Hawke's 1983 election policy speech, when he said: We will maintain Australia's commitment to the ANZUS Treaty. Australia should never forget that the American alliance was forged by an Australian Labor Government, the Curtin Government. Such is the pride that the Labor Party has in the ANZUS Treaty. Mr Hayden, as far back as 15 September 1983, had this to say after putting the Treaty under the microscope: The review has led us to a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of the alliance as fundamental to Australia's national security and foreign defence policies . . . Although the Treaty was drawn up a generation ago and in very different circumstances . . . the commitments and obligations that were accepted then, remain as valid and appropriate today. So to this extent at least the Government represents the views of the Labor Party. One could now, of course, question that in many respects. Both sides of politics recognise the fundamental importance of ANZUS to our very security. Notwithstanding that recognition, this Government is prepared to compromise that security for the sake of the legislation presently before us, which both overrides and restricts ANZUS. Article 5 of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and clauses 11 and 15 of the Bill forbid the permanent stationing of nuclear weapons within the zone. This may take the form of air, naval and army bases of nuclear armed forces, storage depots for nuclear weapons or seabed emplacements of nuclear weapons. I remind the Senate of the words used by the Department of Defence in its report in 1982 to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. These are the words of the Department of Defence, a non-politicised government department: ANZUS also has a wide significance as an important part of the web of alliances and treaty arrangements which constitute the Western Alliance. It is within this framework that the Australian offer of home porting facilities at Cockburn Sound to the United States Navy ships engaged in patrolling the Indian Ocean, for example, is seen as linked to Australia's obligations under ANZUS. The Australian Department of Defence has said that ANZUS is intrinsically linked to the providing of a capacity for home porting for American ships. Yet we now have legislation before us which consciously and wilfully is designed to ensure that there shall not be home porting within Australia's bases. The facts are that under certain circumstances and on occasions of a given threat ANZUS may well demand that a nuclear capacity force be stationed in the South Pacific, more particularly in Australia. It may well be that, as either a deterrence or a defence or both, under the ANZUS agreement Australia and/or the USA may wish to have such a capacity stationed on Australia's shores. Under this Treaty that option is closed. That part of ANZUS is no longer operative. That part of ANZUS is no longer able to be implemented. We now have legislation setting in concrete that the Americans are unable to fulfil all their obligations under the ANZUS Treaty. Frankly, we may well be witnessing stage 2 of the unravelling of ANZUS. I well remember what a prominent United States congressman had to say. I quote him, if I may: Why should we sit back and allow ourselves to become Soviet targets . . . while others refuse to shoulder their responsibilities . . . we find our so-called friends and allies not even willing to have our aircraft land on their territory. What have the Americans had to say in recent months about this Treaty, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Hayden has put it to us that it is well received in the international community? I quote from the National Times of April this year: The United States Administration has bluntly told senior members of the Australian Government it believes Australia's initiative to establish a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific will directly benefit the Soviet Union's global objectives. At high-level talks in Canberra and Washington over the past two weeks, the US has taken an extremely hard line against the nuclear-free zone and has rejected Australian pressure for the United States to endorse it. The US position led to a clash between US Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Australian Foreign Minister Bill Hayden in Canberra two weeks ago. . . . . . . . . . In his Canberra talks, Weinberger stated bluntly that the US believed the creation of the nuclear-free zone would `advantage the aggressor power' and disadvantage the US. He warned that Australia should not underestimate the Soviet Union's ambitions in the South Pacific. Weinberger told the Australian ministers that if the US endorsed the South Pacific treaty there was a serious danger that similar zones would be established in other oceans and that the oceans of the world could become `linked by interlocking circles' of nuclear-free zones. He made it clear the US saw the creation of the zone as a serious impediment to the free movement of US warships in the region. So much for the welcoming by the international community of this wondrous zone that the Government has now cast upon the Australian community. The unravelling of ANZUS is quite naturally a dedicated pursuit of the Soviets. To quote Paul Dibb, the Government's adviser on defence matters: The Soviet Union would like to see the ANZUS Alliance system disrupted in its favour and the close relationship that has been developed between Australia, New Zealand, and the United States with the ASEAN countries and with the nations of Oceania destroyed. The importance of ANZUS to the USSR needs to be clearly understood. The Soviets are very conscious of the enormous influence the ANZUS alliance brings to the security of the South Pacific, not only by joint defence co-ordination, but also by the interchange of intelligence and by mutual co-operation. Anything which undermines this alliance quite naturally has the full support of the Soviets and hence their support for the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Perhaps Mr Hayden was speaking of support for the treaty zone by the international community when he was referring to the congratulations he received from his Soviet counterpart at the United Nations in September 1985-surprise, surprise! This was followed in April 1986 by the Soviet Government stating that the South Pacific nuclear free zone proposal `met with a most positive response in the Soviet Union'. Senator Georges —That makes it bad, does it? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Clearly, it identifies the interests the Soviets have in removing ANZUS and destabilising the relationship of the components of ANZUS itself. The United States Department of Defense in its Soviet Military Power 1986 states: Moscow has already sought to exploit the anti-nuclear sentiment in the Pacific Island states, Australia, and New Zealand through calls for nuclear-free zones that would have a much greater impact on US ships and aircraft than on those of the Soviets. This, coupled with their efforts to have states in this area deny access to the US could prove to be damaging to the Western strategic interests. Of course, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Forum delegates visited Moscow in February 1986. While the Soviets supported the Treaty they went on to say, and I quote the Soviet News Bulletin: At the same time the Soviet side pointed out the importance of making certain that the agreement creating the nuclear-free zone really ensures the making of the territories of the signatory states into a zone completely free from nuclear weapons. This presupposes, in particular, a ban on the transit through the nuclear-free zone's territory of nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive devices, including visits at ports and air fields there by foreign warships and aircraft with nuclear weapons aboard. We had our dear friend General Secretary Gorbachev stating: The USSR supports proclaiming of the southern part of the Pacific as a nuclear free zone and urges all nuclear powers to guarantee its status in a unilateral or bilateral way. That was reported by Tass in the Soviet News Bulletin on 29 July this year. It ought to be recognised that the Soviet support, in essence, is subject to-- Senator Georges —Therefore it is bad-is that what you are saying? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Listen with care. No, I am not saying it is necessarily bad. In this case it is bad. Its motive is obvious. It ought to be recognised that the Soviet support is, in essence, subject to the same conditions as it imposed on the Latin American Treaty. I remind Senator Georges that the Soviet Union says that it supports the Treaty but I remind him of the qualification: . . . authorizing the transit of nuclear weapons in any form would be contrary to the objectives of the treaty, and `incompatible with a non-nuclear status' of the zone; in cases where the treaty parties authorized actions incompatible with the zone's non-nuclear status, the Soviet Union reserved the right to reconsider its obligations under Protocol II. What does Protocol II say? It states: Each Party further undertakes not to use or threaten to use any nuclear explosive device against: a) Parties to the Treaty; or b) any territory within the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone for which a state has become a Party to Protocol I is internationally responsible. The Soviets are saying that as long as the Treaty allows the navigation through the zone of warships with nuclear capability or nuclear power, they reserve the right to fire nuclear weapons into the zone. Their commitment is a Claytons commitment. They support the zone, provided that it abolishes bans and outlaws the home porting of American vessels. In the event that there is home porting of American vessels or vessels of any other of Australia's allies, they reserve the right to take all bets off. So we can understand where they stand. It is clear that the intentions of the Soviets are to gut the influence and capacities of the United States in the region and in so doing to destabilise the region and relationships between the United States, Australia and New Zealand and other South Pacific nations. The Opposition, of course, supports the bans on the dumping of nuclear waste and on nuclear testing within the region. However, it is our view-the proper view, I submit-that those bans ought not to be tied in some loose and inadequate way, as they have been, to a treaty of this nature. They should be subject to a separate and substantial convention of their own. In other words, their status ought to be raised and not be tied to this sham, this shabby attempt to delude the Left and the peace vote that the Government has really established a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. Senator Georges —They are not succeeding, of course. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Of course not. As I said at the outset, this Treaty offers the worst of all worlds. It destabilises our area of influence and it reduces our defence capabilities and defence capacity while at the same time offering nothing in a tangible way to reduce the prospects of a nuclear war. The legislation, other than placing our security at risk, will achieve none of the objectives which it purports to pursue and does not comply with the general guidelines set down by the United States or Britain. Those guidelines are pretty simple and pretty reasonable. They are not guidelines that one could easily disagree with. Included amongst those guidelines is that all states in the region should participate. The truth of the matter is that all the nations in the region do not agree and have not all signed the Treaty. That is a precondition before the Americans will accept it, and quite properly so. One other condition that falls to the ground is that existing security arrangements should not be disturbed. Of course, existing arrangements are disturbed because the very basis of ANZUS is undermined. So to that extent the Americans cannot be expected freely and willingly to sign the protocol. The Americans may well sign the protocol-I am not suggesting they will not-but they will not be doing it because they think it is the best thing to do. So I put it to honourable senators that the Treaty in no way enhances the security of Australia. The substance of the Treaty is in conflict and in my view the flowery prose and promises carved in stone will not be worth a row of beans. In the final analysis, in a conflict the nuclear free zone will be seen for what it is, that is, having no substance. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.43) —I rise to address myself to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill 1986. I wish to escape the crude pro-American and anti-American sloganeering into which much of this debate outside this chamber has degenerated. Like some other senators who have spoken on this debate, I too wish to examine the foreign policy context into which the Bill fits and to raise the question whether it fits well or ill. The problem is that there is little serious debate in the electorate about foreign policy and its relation to defence policy. Clearly Australia cannot have a credible foreign policy until it has decided the national security interests which should mould the shape of key foreign policy goals. Therefore, before addressing the merits of this Bill, one must consider first the national security objectives which a Bill such as this should support. In my response to the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, I have critically examined the strategic presuppositions on which this review was based. By analysing the nature of our geography and the structure of our economy from the perspective of our proneness to indirect attack, I drew the conclusion that the key to Australia's defence is the security of our sea lines of communication. I made the further point that, although defence of Australia means sea-lane defence, we could not attempt this successfully on our own. We would need to act in co-ordination with neighbours and allies. This means that we need not only a military capacity to contribute to sea-lane defence, but also a foreign policy which would enable us to deploy our forces and to co-ordinate them with friendly forces at points far from the Australian mainland. What I want to do today, instead of dangerously tinkering at the edges of foreign and defence policy as this Bill does, is to consider what kind of foreign policy would support a defence of the sea-lanes and whether this Bill would help or hinder this project. It is clear that the precondition for a sea-lane defence policy is a foreign policy aimed at deeply engaging Australia in the international relations of the region through which pass the sea-lanes vital to us. Some would argue that we have already met this condition by pointing to Australia's abiding diplomatic interests in our northern and Pacific neighbours. That diplomacy is precisely the point. From the point of view of some in our region, our interest seems like nothing more than diplomacy-that is, words, words, words-and, all too commonly, a cranky, individualistic style of expression at that. So, rather than shoring up friends for the future, Australia has begun to develop a fund of suspicion and contempt in countries whose geographical location and good will bear heavily on our ability to defend this country. The retreat from the region advised by the Dibb report confirms the growing impression among our neighbours that Australia finds it distasteful to have to live in this corner of the world. But even if a natural sense of being culturally unique in the region disposes Australians-quite rightly, in my view-to think of themselves as belonging to the world of European culture, rather than to that of Asian and Pacific cultures, common sense demands that we face facts-namely, that our security is bound up with that of our Asian and Pacific neighbours. This is because a threat to them poses a threat to our vulnerable sea lines of communication. Sea-lane defence means, therefore, something more fundamental than deploying naval and air forces on or over the relevant waterways. Because control of the lands adjacent to these waters gives a high degree of leverage over them, sea-lane defence entails defending the lands proximate to seas most important to us. Consequently, it is in the interests of our country that our neighbours should be both strong and on close terms with Australia. They should be so close, in fact, that these relations should entail Australia giving concrete expression to the belief that their national security is a component of our national security; for their part, they should come to regard practical Australian support as an important element in their own defence planning. The contribution, then, of foreign policy to Australian national security ought to be to establish a substantial reciprocal commitment to defending the strategic interests we share with our neighbours. As for defence policy, its contribution should be to provide armed forces capable of conducting independent operations, though in co-ordination with those of our neighbours, in strategically forward areas. The object of this military activity should be to assert some control over waters which are mutually vital to us and to defend those territories whose loss would endanger sea lane security. This kind of `regional deterrence' policy is just plain common sense. It is ridiculous to argue that it is better to fight one's enemies on one's own doorstep than on someone else's. It is absurd to claim that it is superior to delay engaging the enemy until he is in the front yard than to meet him while he is still far off. In any case, an enemy who attacks our sea lanes strikes home indirectly. By hitting the sea lanes an enemy can make us bleed, even fatally, without making an expensive and dangerous direct assault on the Australian continent. Our geography and our reliance on overseas trade make a policy of regional deterrence a strategic imperative. As Professor T. B. Millar recently put it: The most elementary concepts of defence require that Australia does everything possible to avoid fighting on its own territory except in the last resort. Critics often made the mistake of confusing this kind of regional deterrence with the old doctrine of `forward defence'. Forward defence meant that Australian forces played the role of a tiny, dependent cog in a great military machine operated by a powerful ally in its own interests. This is not what I am talking about when I speak of `regional deterrence'. What I am proposing is that we employ the `forward' element of the old doctrine, but in a new way. What is new in this proposal is that Australia should have a real defence force of its own, one which by its mere existence would provide Australian governments with a previously unattainable degree of freedom in the conduct of national security policy. Also, `freedom of action' here means a Federal government released from the two major alternative limitations which still circumscribe its power to conduct an integrated national security policy. One is our historical tendency to base defence policy on the fortuitous conjunction of Australia's strategic interests with those of a great and powerful ally. The other arises from the laudable attempt to escape this fatalistic trust in the international constellation of powers. But it ends, alas, in isolationism. Both policies are dangerous for Australia. The former relies on an agreement of interests which might never develop. The latter, which issues logically in a Fortress Australia strategy, commits us to fighting an enemy when it is already too late. My proposal, then, contains a second new element, which is that Australia should have the power and the determination to influence events and not merely to react to them. Our foreign policy, therefore, should forge links which, in times of danger, will provide the Federal Government with a means of making a co-operative defence of the sea lanes and of providing the opportunity, if need be, of meeting an enemy on the lands which adjoin our sea lines of communication. To make such a foreign policy plausible, Australia needs military forces capable of exploiting the opportunities opened up by diplomacy. Without armed forces able to give effect to regional deterrence, and without the demonstrated political will to use these forces in a forward mode, any foreign policy designed to enhance Australia's real security interests is doomed from the outset to fail. So, while a regional deterrence policy is impossible unless foreign policy paves the way, diplomacy can achieve nothing towards this end if our neighbours see that Australia lacks both the means and the will to defend the strategic interests common to those who live in the region. Assuming, then, the resolution to develop the right sort of armed forces, what kind of foreign policy objectives will enable those forces effectively to be deployed and, if necessary, to fight on strategically advantageous ground of our own choosing? Australia does not need a lot of new alliances. Those which she has-especially our alliance with the United States and the Five Power Defence Pact-already form a springboard from which to launch a regional deterrence policy. Even the forgotten commitment to Thailand and the Philippines under the South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty could be of service. The Five Power Defence Arrangement and our contribution to its integrated air defence system provide for Australia the most convenient stepping stones into a regional deterrence posture. These structures already provide us with a means of contributing to the defence of the Malacca Straits and of that vital sea-lane which passes through that area into the South China Sea and from thence north-east to Taiwan, Japan and Korea. This route is important to Australia because it carries the oil supplies which fuel the economies of Australia's chief northern Pacific trading partners. Interdiction of these lines would play havoc not only with their economies but also with our own. Secondly, the Five Power Defence Pact and the bases at Butterworth and Singapore provide Australia-assuming it has the right kind of military forces-with the option of going to the defence of our northern neighbours should they be attacked by some power whose expansion could threaten sea-lane security. Australia could, of course, do nothing about adverse changes in our strategic environment. But since our security depends on the lands and waters to our north not falling under hostile influence or control, it is in Australia's interests to be able to contribute in a forceful way to their defence. Consequently, one object of our foreign policy should be to preserve Australia's capacity for forward basing and forward operation in and around the Malay peninsula. Because the Australian contribution to sea-lane defence in the region is insufficient by itself to preserve our strategic interests, the next objective of our foreign policy should be to develop among the nations of south-east and north-east Asia and the Pacific arrangements which would reinforce sea-lane defence. This would seem to require a series of agreements which would draw Japan, Taiwan and Indonesia together with Five Power Defence Pact members to plan for and to practise sea control operations in the South China Sea and the Malacca Straits. A similar arrangement between Australia and Indonesia ought to be worked out to control the Lombok and Sunda straits and the seas around Australia's north-west. None of these arrangements requires a treaty or a specific commitment to dispatch forces in time of war to defend any particular stretch of land or water. Rather, we need to set up machinery, perhaps at the chiefs-of-staff level, for conducting joint maritime operations and the routine exercising of the forces and skills required to defend the sea-lanes. This practical co-operation and planning for the defence of common interest should provide as effectively as a formal agreement the kind of mutual confidence and reliance which will dispose regional powers naturally to look for one another's support when confronted by a threat to their mutual strategy interests. The unformulated disposition toward military co-operation which such arrangements would promote is the sine qua non of Australia's new regional deterrence strategy. Unless foreign policy and peacetime military co-operation develop a reasonable expectation of mutual support in time of conflict, an effective defence of Australia's real strategic interests can never be made. Without such expectations, Australia will be deprived of the opportunity to meet our enemies at a distance from our shores and at points strategically most significant to us. Defence in the South East Asian region should not, however, be our only concern. South East Asia is Australia's outer defence perimeter. Our second line of defence is the stretch of islands which reaches over the roof of Australia from West Irian to Vanuatu and beyond. These command the approaches to eastern Australia and our chief line of communication with the North Pacific and with the United States. As I pointed out in my earlier observations on sea-lane defence, the most important points in this island chain are the passages between the Solomon and Bismarck Seas. To secure the lines of communication passing through this area, friendship with Papua New Guinea is essential. Indeed, given the decision of the Hawke Government not to replace HMAS Melbourne, Papua New Guinea territory assumes an added importance to the defence of Australia. These nearby islands need to serve as our replacement aircraft carrier. Their role should be to make possible effective Australian maritime operations to defend the choke points between the Bismarck and Solomon seas. What Australia, therefore, needs are naval and air bases in Papua New Guinea. To obtain and to preserve a base on Manus Island, as well as access for the Royal Australian Air Force to Port Moresby and Rabaul, should be the major goal of Australian security relations with Papua New Guinea. Australia needs these facilities, not only to exercise control over the Bismarck Sea and the nearby narrow waters, but also to pre-empt the possibility of these bases, and Manus above all, falling into the hands of an unfriendly power. Given the strategic importance of Papua New Guinea to Australia, the recent decision by the Federal Government to cut our aid to that country is fraught with dangers for Australia's security. On the aid issue, the Hawke Government has made a capital error of judgment. I do not deny the importance of cutting back on government expenditure, particularly in this moment of economic crisis. However, cuts should not be made which have the potential to put our national security at risk. Certainly, cuts in our aid to Papua New Guinea fall into this category, apart from the altruistic questions involved. No excuse or opportunity should ever be given to a Papua New Guinea government to turn away from its close friendship with Australia. More to the point, no foreign power should replace Australia in the interests or the affections of Papua New Guinea. In particular, no power, apart from Australia, should be able to use Papua New Guinea territory for any military purpose. To achieve these objectives Australia needs to rethink its policy toward Papua New Guinea. A revamped policy toward this country should include, as matter of the highest priority, a generous aid program which will exercise a compelling pro-Australian influence on Papua New Guinea governments and peoples alike. Papua New Guinea needs to be persuaded by our actions that its national security and national development will be best supported by an especially close relationship with Australia. This relationship should include the hosting of Australian bases. Moreover, because Papua New Guinea is vital to Australia, our mutual security interests should be formulated in a defence treaty. This ought to be the primary security goal of Australian foreign policy towards Papua New Guinea. If, however, our foreign policy towards South East Asia and the Pacific, Papua New Guinea particularly, should fail, if our defence efforts in those areas should meet with defeat and if a direct threat to Australia should develop as a result, we would still have a third line of defence. This is where the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities comes into play. The document provides a realistic strategy for the defence of the Australian mainland should all else fail. In this case, our objective will be to defeat the enemy in the sea-air gap. Let us have done with the Dibb fiction that defence of the `sea-air gap' is a `layered defence': It is a single layer defence. According to the Dibb theory, the enemy must be defeated in its attempt to cross a moat 1,000 nautical miles wide; nor is there any plan to fall back into the continent should our attackers succeed in landing significant forces-not at all. The plan is for the Army to conduct what amounts to a mopping up operation in the vicinity of the coastline against those of the enemy who manage to make it through the moat. The way Dibb proposes for the Army to be deployed does not constitute a second line of defence, it is merely the rear sector of his first. The concept of the `layered defence' as expounded in the Dibb report is little more than a cheap political slogan decked out in scholarly finery or a theatrical costume designed for a Minister for Defence who postures on the national stage as a latter day Australian von Clausewitz. It is a pity that Mr Dibb's considerable learning should have been made use of in this ephemeral and intellectually slippery way. What I am proposing, though-I hope the Government is able to take this on board-is a real `layered defence', one four layers deep. As I have indicated, the first is in South East Asia, the second is on the line of islands stretching from West Irian to Vanuatu and beyond and the third is in the `sea-air gap'. The fourth line of defence is on the Australian continent itself. Here we can make use of the country's strategic depth to manoeuvre against the invader. With the Dibb strategy, Australia gets one throw of the dice and we cannot afford to lose. With my proposal Australia will have four chances to defeat its enemies and fall-back options should its preferred strategy fail. Australia has nothing to fall back on if the Dibb strategy miscarries-nothing except defeat. Finally, I turn to the question of our relations with the United States of America. As I have said in earlier comments on this matter, Australia should not seek to rely on the United States to the same degree that it has in the past. Our defence planning should be conducted as if, for all practical purposes, there were no Australia-United States alliance. We must think of having to defend our interests without American help. This means that we cannot assume that the Americans can be relied on to counter strategic imbalances in the approaches to Australia before they mature into threats to our country. The inevitable result of relying thus on others is that Australia must suffer without resistance indirect threats and hostile military action in the area of major strategic value to us. In addition, it means that Australia will defend itself only by fighting on its own ground and hence in circumstances hugely to its disadvantage. Defence planning of this kind is an invitation to our enemies to use armed force against Australia. The only rational alternative policy is for Australia to conduct an offensive defence strategy in which, in combination with our neighbours and regional trading partners, we will attempt to forestall or foil the development of indirect threats before they mature against our sea lines of communication. If in the end we receive US help, well and good. This will make our forward dispositions all the more powerful. Indeed, though we must not depend on American aid, Australia's preparations for regional deterrence will attract American support more powerfully because these preparations have the further advantages of contributing both to regional defence and to the security of the Western interest in the region. This is because the American defence role in our zone of strategic interest is, in part, a function of the commitment of America's closest regional allies to the defence of mutual regional interests. On the other hand, if Australia is not prepared to become militarily engaged in the area which embraces its most important strategic assets, the Americans have a disincentive to engage themselves there. This is a point that Association of South East Asian Nations countries well appreciate and it is why they want Australia to be effectively and actively involved militarily in the region. They know that a forward role for Australia in the region acts as a powerful magnet to US engagement. This is a point that Australian planners should better understand, especially in view of re-emerging popular isolationist instincts in the United States. With regard to the Americans then, our rule ought to be: Plan as if everything depends on ourselves and we shall have allies, plan as if everything depends on allies and we shall end up fighting on our own ground and alone. In the light of this axiom, the role of Australian foreign policy should be to pave the way into our South East Asian and Pacific front line. These considerations should lead the Government and the Parliament to ask these questions about the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. Does the Government want to have its cake and eat it too? Does the Government want the kudos of being nuclear free while playing host to the nuclear Navy of the United States and other elements supportive of US strategic nuclear forces? Is this not irrational and dangerous? Does this danger not lie in the fact that the Government, having made an emotive issue of the term `nuclear free zone', has established a springboard from which groups can launch an actual and premature nuclear free zone which would debar both nuclear armed and nuclear powered vessels from Australian and other Pacific ports? In the absence of any realistic policy to defend our interests in the region by regional deterrence or conventional means, does the Bill not promote the possibility of an actual and premature nuclear free zone and would this not destroy Australia's connection with the United States, whose support in times of crisis we ought not to deny ourselves? Would it not also disturb security in the Pacific and Asian region to the detriment of multilateral and verifiable disarmament, include nuclear disarmament, and world peace? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.13) —I thank the Senate for its unanimous support of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill. I thank the majority of the Senate for its clearly indicated support of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. Clearly, the arguments, such as they were, really boiled down to arguments about the latter Bill and it is to those that I will confine my reply. The passage of this Bill will clear the way for Australia's ratification of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. That Treaty is an initiative of Australia, specifically of the Hawke Government, and it is an initiative of which we are very proud. It expresses the strong community of interest which members of the South Pacific Forum share in environmental and security matters and reflects the deeply felt and long-standing concerns in our region about nuclear testing, the ocean dumping of nuclear waste and the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Treaty commits all the parties to important obligations in those areas. It also reflects, in the words of the preamble that have been quoted once before in this debate, but which deserve repetition, the determination of the people of the South Pacific: . . . that the bounty and beauty of the land and sea in their region shall remain the heritage of their peoples and their desendants in perpetuity to be enjoyed by all in peace; Seven other South Pacific Forum countries have already ratified that Treaty-Fiji, Cook Islands, Niue, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Western Samoa and New Zealand. Eight ratifications are required for it to enter into force. The Treaty thus awaits Australia's ratification and that ratification will be forthcoming this week, shortly after the passage of this Bill. As I have said, that will be a splendid achievement not only for Australia but for the entire South Pacific region. The primary attack on the Bill has taken the form of an attack by the Opposition parties, joined by Senator Harradine, on the strategic consequences alleged to flow from it. I do not think it is appropriate to turn this debate, as Senator Harradine tried to do, into a full scale analysis of Australian foreign policy, defence policy, the Dibb Review into Australia's Defence Capabilities, regional defence and the large miscellany of issues that are necessarily tied up in considering that. But it is important to recognise just what the Opposition, in particular, is saying about this Bill and why the Opposition, in particular, is opposing it. The reason why it is opposing it, primarily and overwhelmingly, is that the Liberal Party and the National Party favour the installation on Australian soil of nuclear weapons. They favour home porting, they favour the stationing of weapons, they favour the internal transport of weapons and they favour the storage of weapons on Australian soil. That was made absolutely clear by Mr Peacock in his initial Press statement back on 7 August 1985 responding to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty when its terms were first announced. It has subsequently become clear in the contributions of Mr Peacock and others to the House of Representatives debate and the contributions of all the major Opposition speakers today. Senator Durack —You are misrepresenting the Opposition. Senator GARETH EVANS —If I am misrepresenting the Opposition I would be delighted to be told where. Let me quote, for example, from what Mr Peacock said on 7 August. He had not been provided with a copy of the Treaty at that stage but he was particularly concerned that it could prohibit home porting within the zone. I quote not from a newspaper report but from his own Press release, which states: Any reading of newspaper reports of the proposal-and other information I've had-indicates that this will be the likely interpretation of the Treaty which bans the installation and storage of nuclear weapons within the zone. I call upon the Prime Minister to immediately and categorically give an assurance to the Australian people that the Treaty, as drafted, will not prohibit home porting by the United States within the zone. This would be an act of folly. Of course, home porting is no more and no less than the installation and storage of nuclear weapons on Australian soil. That is the position of the Opposition, it is the position of the Liberal and National parties, and it is a position which is profoundly at odds with the views of the Government, and I believe, the views of the Australian people. We make no apology whatsoever for our complete opposition to the stationing of nuclear weapons on Australian territory. As to home porting, the Fraser Government sought to interest the United States of America in such a proposition in relation to Stirling in Western Australia but the United States made it clear that it was not interested. The United States bases in the Philippines are secure, in any event, until 1991. Moreover, if any need to relocate them were proven in due course, all the current discussion in the United States is directed at points east and north of the Philippines, not south, since to move further south would render it more difficult for the United States to honour its North Pacific obligations. It is simply not the case that there is any concern of any measurable kind in the United States about the strategic implications in the region of the adoption of this legislation. I am not saying that there is no concern about nuclear free zones as such and the precedential status that the creation of a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific would have elsewhere. But in terms of the immediate strategic interests which the United States has obviously designed to protect and which we are pledged to safeguard, there is no way in which that will be undermined in any way. The Treaty provides all that the United States requires for its strategic mobility in the region. It in no way restricts any current or contemplated United States military activity in the region. United States officials themselves-and this has been the subject not just of private discussion but of congressional testimony-have acknowledged the effort that was made in drafting the Treaty to take into account United States strategic interests in the region. It is important to appreciate-I do not think very many people in the Opposition do-that the Treaty of Rarotonga and its protocols simply do not cut across acknowledgment of the central importance of stable nuclear deterrence. That is one of the reasons why some people say that the Treaty does not go as far as they would like it to. But that is a different point made for different reasons. The point I am dealing with at the moment is the concern about its strategic impact. One needs to appreciate that the Treaty explicitly upholds the sovereign right of each party to make its own security arrangements and decisions on port access for naval vessels in transit, including access to airports for military aircraft. The formulations are drafted to permit military exercises and other navigation within territorial waters of Treaty parties. There is a full respect for transit rights for ships and aircraft in accordance with customary international law and the law of the sea. In addition to high seas freedoms such as navigation and overflight, the Treaty specifically protects rights of innocent passage through the territorial sea and rights of passage for ships and aircraft through archipelagic waters and straits used for international navigation and all this is quite clear and explicit in this Treaty, unlike the Treaty of Tlatelolco where these things were left inexplicit and generated some concern of a kind that might have led to thin edge of the wedge arguments of the kind that in turn we have heard from Senator Harradine, and so on. I suppose that a few other things are worth mentioning for the record. The Treaty fully upholds the principle that littoral states cannot purport to legislate for oceans or otherwise beyond their internationally recognised legal jurisdiction and in this it is stronger and clearer again than the Tlatelolco Treaty. It does not proscribe the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and, unlike the Tlatelolco Treaty, it goes further in the other direction and does not permit so-called peaceful nuclear explosions. The point is acknowledged that it is very difficult in practice to distinguish between the two. I further make the point, again to meet this concern about strategic implications, that the protocols of the Treaty were amended between draft and finalisation as a result of forum consultations with United States officials to include a withdrawal clause in conformity with other arms control treaties to which the United States is a party. I simply do not believe that there is any foundation for the argument that the Treaty will operate to reduce strategic mobility, undermine the principle of nuclear deterrence, or in some other way weaken those larger, Western strategic interests to which Australia is necessarily bound. Nor does the Treaty in any way weaken Australia's security. It maintains all the important benefits and advantages long accruing to Australia from ANZUS and adds to them such important elements as undertakings by our South Pacific neighbours that they will not allow nuclear weapons to be stationed on their respective territories and, through the protocols, will attract legally binding guarantees that the nuclear weapons states will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against Australia. Senator Crichton-Browne —When do you expect the protocols to be signed? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is a matter for discussion and negotiation at the moment. As far as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China are concerned there seems to be no particular difficulty about them. France is-- Senator Crichton-Browne —I am talking about our allies-Great Britain and America. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not think the honourable senator is talking about our allies being likely to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against Australia. But the two countries that are proving to be taking the longest to come to grips with these issues are the United States and France. Senator Crichton-Browne —As you know, the Russians have a caveat on their protocol. Senator GARETH EVANS —We will debate that issue at a later time. For the moment it is perfectly clear that the terms of the Treaty and the protocols attached to it are such that not only are Western strategic interests not threatened, not only is United States strategic mobility not in any way threatened, not only is the capacity to mobilise fully and effectively in the event of a major confrontation not threatened, but also Australia's own interests are manifestly advanced in the ways that I have just described. Senator Sir John Carrick went on, in another assault on the legislation, to say that there was nothing in the Treaty, nor in this Bill picking it up and applying it, which broke any new ground in international law, in particular as far as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was concerned. He argued that anything that was worth saying or doing was already said and done in the context of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But that is simply not to appreciate fully the extent of the ground covered by this Treaty. Let me indicate six or seven ways in which this Treaty breaks new ground in international law. It prescribes more explicit conditions for the export of nuclear material than does the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The South Pacific Treaty provides fullscope safeguards restricting the export of nuclear materials even to nuclear weapon states whereas the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not prescribe the safeguards requirements in anything like the same detail. Again, as I have already said, this Treaty prohibits peaceful nuclear explosions in a way that other similar treaties in the past have not. It prohibits the facilitation of nuclear testing, which, of course, is not something addressed in the NPT. It prohibits parties from dumping of radioactive waste, and in that respect it is complementary to the South Pacific regional and environmental program convention, which has just been finalised, as I indicated, a few days ago. It prohibits the facilitation of the dumping of radioactive wastes as distinct from just the dumping itself. It provides more detailed definitions of the stationing of nuclear explosive devices than does the Treaty of Tlatelolco or any similar treaty otherwise previously put in place. It establishes-this is particularly important-very high standards of verification and control requirements and, as such, is a model for other arms control measures. These are all ways in which this Treaty does go beyond the NPT and any similar previous measures and all ways in which this Treaty does break new ground. The only remaining contribution I think I ought to deal with quickly-although no doubt some of these canards will be trotted out again in the Committee stage-is Senator Sanders's quite extraordinarily irresponsible discussion, if it can be dignified with that description, of aspects of our present uranium sales policy and in particular the question of uranium sales to France. I was not fully able to focus on everything that he said and I have not yet seen a Hansard report of it, but there are at least four spectacular misstatements from Senator Sanders that came tumbling out in the few minutes that I was listening to him. The only thing I can say for Senator Sanders is that he always, when challenged with these things, gracefully acknowledges that he was telling fibs or exaggerating or behaving in a thoroughly coloured and tendentious fashion. But it would be helpful if in the future, when corrected on these matters, he did not go on repeating them as the gospel thereafter. Let me just quickly correct the record. I refer, firstly, to the story about the Australian Government contemplating uranium sales to Taiwan, as a result of some wildly over-optimistic British Petroleum internal memorandum being leaked, as it was a few weeks ago. As Senator Sanders would well appreciate, that particular story was immediately and vigorously quashed by public statements, both by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) and by myself, making it clear that there was no safeguards arrangement in existence between ourselves and Taiwan and under those circumstances it was simply inconceivable that there could be any contemplation of exporting uranium to that particular country. The second thing we had was this extraordinary proposition based on my answer in the Senate of 20 August when I referred to `Roxby Downs and new supplies coming on to the market'-something that was misdescribed in the Daily Hansard, for easily explicable reasons, as `new suppliers coming on to the market'. It was a misunderstanding of what I had said, which I immediately corrected later in that same Question Time, making it clear that the three mines policy remained intact and there was no question of any move away from that; there would be no `new suppliers' coming on to the market so long as the Australian Labor Party's policy remained as it is, which we had every intention of ensuring. Notwithstanding that correction later that same Question Time-and again, I think, perhaps the next day, just to make it absolutely clear-Senator Sanders quite shamelessly has trotted out that particular misquotation again in his contribution to this debate. Then we have had the tale of the Superphenix reactor and the alleged contribution to that of Australian nuclear material. The truth of the matter is that Australian origin material has not been used in the Superphenix fast breeder reactor, either by way of an initial fuel or by way of, in its depleted form-- Senator Sanders —You said `to the best of my knowledge' before. Are you saying that none has ever been used? Senator GARETH EVANS —Had the honourable senator's statement in the Parliament been similarly qualified, I might have treated it with a little more respect. All I can say is that so far as depleted Australian uranium is concerned, it is the case that the enrichment process has a byproduct of depleted uranium which possesses less than a third of the radioactivity of natural uranium. The enrichment that is done in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in respect of uranium destined ultimately for Finland does result in some of that depleted uranium coming back to France. But the truth of the matter is that that depleted uranium resulting from Soviet enrichment is stored under a fee arrangement at a French stockpile where it is clearly marked as being of Australian origin and where it is subject to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections and Australian Safeguards Office accounting procedures. I can be as sure as I am about anything in this whole area of safeguards and ASO procedures and nuclear accounting that none of that Australian depleted uranium is being used in that particular reactor in that way. It is also the case that we are certainly not aware of any Australian origin nuclear material being used otherwise in that particular reactor. Senator Sanders —RWE? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator keeps talking about RWE, but there is no information that I have to give any support, nourishment or sustenance to that particular assertion. Senator Sanders —They have a 10 per cent interest in Superphenix. Senator GARETH EVANS —That may be, but Australian origin nuclear material is tracked right through the system in a way that I know Senator Sanders simply cannot bring himself to understand or to come to grips with. I am perfectly happy that he goes and spends a day in the Australian Safeguards Office in Sydney-an invitation I have offered to him before which he still has not taken me up on because he is afraid that if he does so he will actually learn what happens and lose some wonderful rhetorical lines which he has been able to trot out in complete ignorance and in complete indifference to the truth of the matter in this particular chamber. I have made the point, quite apart from the Superphenix and the whole fast breeder matter, that there is a complete separation in any event of the fuel cycles in France for the production of highly enriched uranium for weapons production purposes. The weapons grade enriched uranium is produced in France at the Pierrelatte facility. I have said as much in answer to questions in this place on 22 August; I have said it elsewhere and I will repeat it again now: The civil nuclear enrichment facility to which Australian uranium is transferred is located at Tricastin. For operational reasons, including that of nuclear criticality, it is not possible to produce high enriched uranium in a civil plant. This physical separation at one of the most sensitive stages of the fuel cycle provides an additional measure of assurance. For a whole variety of reasons, what we know about where the material actually is, what we know about where the French processing is carried out for particular purposes, and all the material on the record that I have referred to over and again, simply makes nonsense of the kinds of allegations which are randomly and cavalierly made by Senator Sanders every time he gets up and opens his mouth on this particular topic. I am trying to anticipate matters that will arise in the Committee stage debate again no doubt in order to shorten that Committee stage debate. Beyond that, there are many other points, some of them equally tendentious, that have been made by other speakers, but bearing in mind the constraints of time, I will not pursue them at this stage. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) during his speech. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Please proceed. Senator DURACK —Senator Evans claimed that the Opposition wanted to see the stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia. He claimed that that was a view that we held. I claim that that is a misrepresentation of my remarks because, in speaking on behalf of the Opposition in this debate yesterday, I made it quite clear that our concern about the prohibition of stationing of nuclear weapons, which is required by the Treaty and by this legislation, is a matter of concern to the Opposition in the event of an emergency occurring or Australia being at peril or at war, and that in those circumstances we would be calling upon our ally, the United States of America, to assist us. That is the very foundation of the ANZUS alliance. If war occurred we might want American aircraft and warships to be deployed out of Australian ports and airfields. Those ships and aircraft may well carry nuclear weapons that may be vital for the defence of Australia. It was that point and that point alone that I wanted to make when I said that we were concerned about the effect of this Treaty which would prevent that happening in time of war. I specifically drew the distinction between the operation of the alliance in time of war and in time of peace. We acknowledge that this Treaty does not prevent normal visits but in time of war it may well render the assistance we would be calling upon of no value to us. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator The Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Aulich, T. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Button, J. N. Macklin, M. J. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F. Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sanders, N. K. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Siddons, J. R. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Vigor, D. B. Jones, G. N. Walsh, P. A. McClelland, Douglas Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Bolkus, N. Hill, R. Black, J. R. Alston, R. K. R. Colston, M. A. Withers, R. G. McKiernan, J. P. Teague, B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.43) —I want briefly to return to the point I raised in my personal explanation at the end of the second reading debate. Under the Standing Orders I was not able to do any more than simply cite the misrepresentation that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, who is at the table, made about the speech that I had previously made. I pointed out that I had made it quite clear that my objection, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, was to the very wide definition of stationing of nuclear weapons in the circumstances that could arise in time of emergency or, indeed, war. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty may prevent Australia from being able to exercise the full value of the ANZUS alliance. Mr Temporary Chairman, I really cannot hear myself speak in this chamber- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —Order! There is too much noise coming from my right. Senator DURACK —Now that Senator Richardson has left we may have a little more silence and attention. During Senator Evans's speech in reply to the second reading debate he claimed that in a statement that Mr Peacock had issued, as shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and on behalf of the Opposition, he had said that Australia opposes the Treaty because it would prevent the home porting of United States warships in Australia and that this therefore means that the Opposition favours the stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia. Mr Peacock, in the House of Representatives on 20 August 1986 when leading for the Opposition in the debate on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill, referred on page 356 of Hansard to the definition of the stationing of nuclear weapons, which is prohibited under the Treaty, and what is meant by it. He referred to the Treaty's definition of `stationing' as including `transportation on land or inland waters, stockpiling, storage, installation and deployment'. Senator Georges —You should be doing this on the third reading. Senator DURACK —For the benefit of Senator Georges, there would have been no need for me to be speaking now or quoting anything had it not been for the Minister who is at the table, Senator Gareth Evans, deliberately seeking to misrepresent the position of the Opposition when he replied to the second reading debate. That is why I am speaking. Mr Peacock went on: This is an extraordinarily wide definition that in effect could strait-jacket successive Australian governments from offering home porting facilities to the United States Navy or base facilities to the United States nuclear-capable aircraft or nuclear-capable ground units. Senator Gareth Evans —QED. Senator DURACK —Senator Evans should listen as I read on. Mr Peacock continued: It is not the argument of the Opposition that we want to stockpile- Senator Gareth Evans —You have read enough to make the point. Senator DURACK —I will start again. Mr Peacock continued: It is not the argument of the Opposition that we want to stockpile nuclear weapons in this country, but we will not abide a clause which says that in time of peril to this country, need, war or a threat to our security, if our allies want to enter our ports-home ports, if one likes-or deploy troops, they will be forbidden to do so by this Bill because of the definition clause defining stationing as including transportation on land or inland waters and deployment. If we were in the perilous situation of asking the United States to come to our aid, is it to be thought that this legislation is to override ANZUS? That is exactly the sort of situation in which this Treaty would override ANZUS. For the Government to say that this Treaty and this Bill have no effect on our existing defence arrangements and the basic security of this country under ANZUS is quite false. They certainly do have such an effect because of the wide definition of `stationing' which I have referred to, which has been referred to in the debate earlier and which has been referred to very clearly by Mr Peacock. Mr Peacock made perfectly clear in the debate in the House of Representatives what the Opposition's objection is. It is not that the Opposition favours the stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia. It certainly does not. Senator Evans has used this debate to misrepresent totally the position of the Opposition as expressed by Mr Peacock in the other place and by other senators and me on behalf of the Opposition in this chamber. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.48) —It is not my desire to prolong this debate but an important point is at issue. I am delighted that Senator Durack read into the record the passage that he did-not from page 356 but from 358 of the Hansard of 20 August-because it makes my point exactly. `Stationing' is defined, as Senator Durack accurately recounted, as `transportation on land or island waters, stockpiling, storage, installation and deployment'. The only one of those things that Mr Peacock ruled out in what Senator Durack quoted him as saying was not the Opposition's policy was stockpiling. What he quite explicitly left in was stationing in the sense of transportation on land or inland waters, storage, installation and deployment. In two explicit references he also indicated support for the concept of home porting. So it is the case that the Opposition does support the installation, the storage, the deployment and the transportation of nuclear weapons on Australian soil. Mr Peacock has said as much; it is there on page 358. My case rests. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.50) —A further misrepresentation of the- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Jessop) —Order! Senator Durack, the Chair has exercised some leniency with respect to the matter we have been discussing. I have allowed time on both sides. I suggest that subsequent speakers direct their attention to the clauses before the Committee. Senator DURACK —Mr Temporary Chairman, with respect, the Bill contains a definition of `stationing'. Senator Evans is endeavouring to misrepresent the position of the Opposition in relation to that matter. He has done so again. All I can do is ask that he pay some attention to exactly what Mr Peacock said in the House of Representatives debate on page 356 of Hansard, not page 358. He does not even have the page in front of him. I suggest that he read that, and read it carefully. He will see that the Opposition's concern is not that we want to have nuclear weapons stationed in Australia, period. We are simply saying that if, in a time of emergency or war, the United States, as we would want it to do, came to Australia's aid, the definition of `stationing' would probably prevent the proper deployment of United States forces in Australia. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.52) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 1, add the following preamble: `WHEREAS it is desirable that the Parliament give effect to certain obligations that Australia has as a party to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and make provision for related matters: ``AND WHEREAS it is the intention of the Parliament to give effect to the policy whereby Australia will refuse to allow the supply of Australian uranium to France until France ceases testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific region:'. (2) Page 1, clause 2, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: 2. (1) Sections 1 to 7 (inclusive) shall come into operation on the day on which the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Act 1986 comes into operation. (2) The remaining provisions of this Act shall come into operation on such day as is, or on such respective days as are, fixed by Proclamation, being a day or days, as the case may be, later than the day referred to in sub-section (1). (3) Page 7, after clause 18, insert the following clause: Prohibition of exportation of uranium to France 18a. (1) Provision for Australia's refusal to allow the supply of Australian uranium to France until France ceases testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific region is made in the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Act 1986. (2) Sub-section (1) does not derogate from the operation of the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Act 1986. One of the main goals of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill 1986 is the halting of French nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific at Muroroa Atoll. However, the Government is furnishing potential material for the bombs by selling uranium to France. So I have framed three amendments. The most important and operative amendment is to add the following preamble: . . . it is the intention of the Parliament to give effect to the policy whereby Australia will refuse to allow the supply of Australian uranium to France until France ceases testing nuclear weapons in the south Pacific region. The other two amendments are basically enabling provisions to allow the preamble to be added to the Bill. They refer to the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Act 1986, which is necessary to make it possible in parliamentary and legal terms to introduce these amendments. The basic thrust of the amendments is to implement the policy of not shipping uranium to France. This policy is, of course, Australian Labor Party policy. As recently as July 1986 in Hobart the Australian Labor Party issued a publication called `Australian Labor Party Platform, Resolutions and Rules as approved by the 37th National Conference, Hobart'. On page 224 paragraph No. 94 states: . . . refuse to allow the supply of Australian uranium to France until France ceases testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific region. It is a good policy, spelt out loud and clear. However, immediately thereafter, before the ink was even dry, Prime Minister Bob Hawke announced that he was going to sell uranium to France-in violation of ALP policy, a policy which many people in Australia took at its face value and they allocated their votes to the Labor Party on that basis. It was a good policy. But the Hawke hubris, the hubris of extreme arrogance and pride, has struck again. He thought he could roll over the people in his Party and the people of Australia. What has he already done? He has already gone back on the overall policy on the shipment of uranium. He has rolled over on his policy of environmental protection in terms of Daintree. He has gone against the policy and the wishes of his Party on Aboriginal land rights. At this very moment the chainsaws are at Jackeys Marsh. He said that he would save Jackeys Marsh, in Tasmania, from the woodchippers. He has not done anything there. He has not done anything in the Lemonthyme area. He has not done anything in East Gippsland. The man has abandoned the principles of the Labor Party. I have put up a mechanism so that the Labor Party in the Senate can implement its own policy of not shipping uranium to France. Last night I heard a lot of opposition to this from the Labor Party people. They are good people, people I respected, but they said: `Look, I would like to vote for this amendment, but I cannot because it would delay the passage of the Bill'. Therefore this morning I moved a motion which in fact would have allowed us to consider my Bill, the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Bill 1986, which would have enabled these amendments to come on to the Notice Paper as an order of business right after the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill was passed, so there would be no delay whatsoever. But these people who last night were criticising me and saying that I was going to delay the procedures voted against my motion to bring on the Bill to hasten the procedures. So it is obvious that they are not opposing my amendments because of their stated reasons; they are opposing the amendments because they are afraid. I think that is a pity. They are good people but they are afraid of what their own Party will do to them. They are abandoning their constituents. They are forgetting that they were not elected by the Party; they were elected by the people of Australia. They work for the people of Australia; they do not work for that Party. They owe their final allegiance to the people of Australia, yet they will not vote-I hope I am wrong-for their own policy; they will not vote for the promise that they made to the people of Australia. There are three major consequences. First, this shows a complete lack of morality. Secondly, it foreshadows open slather in uranium mining. No matter how much the Minister-he is frowning and moaning and rolling around and giving a great histrionic demonstration over there-doth protest, it is obvious that the Australian Government wants to open up more and more sales to France. Thirdly, the Labor Party has abandoned our friends in the Pacific. If we ship uranium-the material for the bombs-to France, how can we expect our friends in the Pacific to believe anything we say? Over and over again we have found that the Labor Party has abandoned its own policies. The Democrats have brought up in this chamber a series of Bills, all of which used to be part of the Labor Party platform. We brought in a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear-powered ships and vessels carrying nuclear weapons in Australian waters or Australian air space, and it was opposed by the Labor Party; a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of ships carrying nuclear weapons through Australian waters, which was opposed by the Labor Party; a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons through Australian air space, which was opposed by the Labor Party; a Bill for an Act to prohibit the manufacture of nuclear weapons in, and the introduction of nuclear weapons into, Australia, which was opposed by the Labor Party; a Bill for an Act to prohibit the importation of nuclear hardware and for purposes connected therewith, which was opposed by the Labor Party; and a Bill for an Act to prohibit the exportation of nuclear materials and purposes connected therewith, which was also opposed by the Labor Party. So we find that this Party, which used to be a party of conscience, a party of great ideals, and which was in fact the Party which was led by Gough Whitlam to power, has changed. The appointment of Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister is the reason I came to Australia. When Mr Whitlam was Prime Minister I felt: `There is a man, there is a government I can relate to'. I came here, and what happened? He unfortunately got kicked out. Honourable senators on the Government side have abandoned every policy and every promise that he made. Senator Crichton-Browne —He is no longer here. Why don't you go, too? Senator SANDERS —There is a statement! Because this honourable senator does not like what I am saying, he says I should leave. That is the Opposition's approach to things; it is just a muzzle, and it is not a very well expressed muzzle. We find that the Opposition is even more culpable in this than is the Labor Party. At least the Labor Party does go through some agony over these issues. The Opposition goes through no agony at all; it has one set purpose, and that is to oppose whatever comes along. We see that the Opposition, which would oppose these amendments, because it does wish to send uranium to France or any place else, therefore wants open slather in terms of any mineral or other exploitation of the resource. But the Labor Party, the party of hope for many Australians, is now going against the wishes of its own people. I urge the people in the Labor Party to have a good think about this. Senator McIntosh —We have. Senator SANDERS —I am sure they have. I do not want to cause them agony, I really do not. If they were doing their job I would not have to be here. If the Labor Party was living up to all of its policies I would not have to be here, and I am here because it is not. Senator Robert Ray —I promise that we will put our shoulders to the wheel. Senator SANDERS —The honourable senator says that he will put his shoulder to the wheel, and an ample shoulder it is. With that shoulder to the wheel I am sure that the Labor Party will move, and I urge that it move. Its members have to stand up on their hind legs and fight for their principles. It is not for me to fight for them. If they vote for my amendments, it will be a vote for common sense and for Australian Labor Party policy. They will be voting for their own policy. What is the point of having policies if they cannot support and vote for those policies? If they vote against the amendments it will be a cringing vote for expediency; they will be knuckling under to those who have the power in their Party. They have to start fighting as they are losing on all fronts. If they do not take a stand on this, where will they end up? This is not the Labor Party any more; it is a Liberal Party. There are two Liberal parties. Members of the Labor Party have to take a stand, and this is their chance. They must obey the wishes of their constituents and vote for the cessation of the shipment of nuclear materials to France. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.04) —The Committee is debating amendments moved by the Australian Democrats to prevent the sale of uranium to France. Those amendments are as much an illusion, as much of a confidence trick, as the title of the Bill we are debating, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill 1986, just as it is a superb confidence trick to pretend that we can have a South Pacific nuclear free zone-and that has been exposed. So there is a confidence trick underlying these amendments. The suggestion is that if the export of uranium to France is denied, somehow or other that will punish France for what it has done on Mururoa Atoll, somehow or other France will not be able to get uranium and somehow or other that uranium will not be used to make bombs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had to admit, when he reversed Australian Labor Party policy on the export of uranium to France, that it was never a policy that had any teeth in it, that it was only a shop window, a front. That was the Prime Minister's own statement a few months ago at the time of the Budget. The truth is that the whole world is capable of producing uranium and that if France does not get uranium from Australia it can get it anywhere else. The great danger is that if it gets it from a country that is not a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it can in fact put that uranium, if it wants to, into a nuclear weapons project. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, uranium from Australia can be used only for peacetime purposes. Its use is monitored the whole way through and there is no capacity whatsoever for it to get into weaponry. So quite contrary to this absolute confidence trick, the best way to stop France using uranium for weapons is for Australia to sell it to France and to monitor its use all the way through. But that is never disclosed. There is also a nonsense trick. The Democrats are trying to frighten the people of the world by saying that our uranium is somehow going to be turned into plutonium. The Democrats know, as the rest of the world must know, that the nuclear weapons states are awash with plutonium and the one thing they do not want any more of is plutonium. There is an attempt, which I support, to set up an international plutonium bank to retire from the world the excess plutonium, yet the threat runs. Let me state the principles that ought to be here instead of these confidence tricks. Every right thinking person in this world wants to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and wants to eliminate them. Every right thinking person wants, as one of the main steps towards that, to stop nuclear tests, in other words, to support the nuclear test ban which Australia supports in Geneva and in the United Nations. Five nations are undertaking underground nuclear tests. If we want to stop France doing that, we also want to stop the other four nations doing that. Are we simply saying that the only reason we want to stop France is that we do not like it doing this in our region or that we do not like it doing this in one of its provinces instead of on its own territory? What are we saying? The key situation ought to be that we should stand up here and be counted and say that we are opposed to nuclear testing, whether it is in China, Russia, France, Great Britain or the United States of America. We are opposed to it, and we will work for a nuclear test ban. The situation is that some kind of selective propaganda is going on. I thoroughly oppose the testing of nuclear weapons, wherever they may be and specifically at Mururoa. There has been this spreading of a belief that the testing at Mururoa has had adverse effects upon the health of the people in the Pacific, especially Australia. Although I do not support the tests at all, I think I am right-I invite the Minister to tell me-that all the monitoring so far fails to reveal radioactivity of any magnitude that would have adverse effects upon human health. I do not say that to encourage it; I say it simply to try to put another one of these propaganda weapons aside. In any case, when I was talking last night on the Bill I pointed out that wherever radioactivity occurs it is spread uniformly throughout the world by the cosmic mix. Senator Sanders —The cosmic mix! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I remind the chamber and the people of Australia that this brain fever bird comes in here using the grossest distortions to give the people of Australia utterly wrong values. This honourable senator who has interjected represents a party that is pledged to destroy the ANZUS Treaty. Let us get that quite clear. The Australian Democrats want to get rid of the ANZUS Treaty; they want Australia to be rid of the Western alliance; they want Australia to be isolated and defenceless in terms of friends. That is their policy. This party to which Senator Sanders belongs wants to destroy the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is a party that says that the 134 nations which regard this Treaty as the most significant weapon in the prevention of proliferation of nuclear weapons are wrong and that Senator Sanders and his party are right. All his shouting will not stop me from reminding the Australian people that this party, the Australian Democrats, wants Australia to be isolated and friendless. That is what it wants to do, and it is performing a major confidence trick. It is pretending to the people that if we can be isolated we can be nuclear free, that somehow or other there can be a nuclear free zone. I believe that the real traitors to Australia are those who, advertently or inadvertently, are pretending that we can create a nuclear free zone other than in a world that is nuclear free. Anybody who creates the illusion of a nuclear free zone by saying `Let us get rid of the alliance; let us get rid of the ANZUS Treaty; let us be isolated and therefore we will be protected in our isolation' is perpetrating upon the Australian people one of the ugliest tricks there can be. Ask the people of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Italy and Scotland about Chernobyl, when the radioactivity went over nuclear free zones, whether or not they were nuclear free. Senator Sanders —You are in favour of nuclear energy. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! Senator Sanders, you will cease interjecting or I will name you. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I wear it as a badge of pride, Mr Temporary Chairman, every time Senator Sanders interjects because he shows how much he and his party are using as a form of corrupt propaganda a very dangerous pretence. If he is saying to the people of Australia that it is safe to get rid of the ANZUS Treaty, he is doing something to destroy the defence of Australia but, more than that, he is doing something to weaken the deterrent which the Western alliance maintains and which is universally regarded as the reason why we maintain peace. On both sides of this chamber there is recognition that, for want of something better at this moment, the deterrent is the reason why we have had 40 years of peace in nuclear terms. He wants to break the deterrent. He wants to destroy the deterrent as far as Australia is concerned. He wants to get the peacekeeping installations removed. I remind the chamber that in Geneva there is a continuous attempt to set up a treaty called an anti-satellite weapon treaty. What would that do? It would try to stop people using weapons to destroy satellites. Why? Because universally nations agree that satellites are the best peacekeepers as they can see what the other fellow is doing. Senator Georges —Oh! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Indeed, Mr Hayden-Senator Georges interjects-said when I was in Geneva: `Yes, that is right. This Government agrees'. Therefore this Government would agree that we should protect the base installations that receive the signals from the satellites. Pine Gap and Nurrungar are such installations, which the Democrats and the left wing of the Australian Labor Party want to destroy. They are pledged to destroy the best peacekeepers we can have, with the surveillance and the verification signals. These are the people who have the nerve to get up here and misrepresent. The Democrats and the Labor left wing are saying that we must stop the export of uranium to France. Why should we not stop the export of uranium to the United Kingdom, America, China and Russia? They are being selective in the first place. They are pretending that the prevention of the export of uranium to France will punish France, but Mr Hawke said that it did not do anything of the sort, that it was only a shop window, that it was only a gesture. It was, of course, a hollow gesture because it meant that France could go anywhere else and buy uranium that then need not be monitored at all. What a monstrosity it is. They are advocating that France should be able to buy uranium which need not be monitored and which may go into weapons. They are putting before us a corruption of the truth. In any case, when they get up would we not expect them to say, not selectively: `Look here, we, like most decent people, are opposed to nuclear tests. We would like to see a nuclear test ban throughout the world. We are not just being selective about Mururoa because it is near us, although we would like to frighten you about it. We want a nuclear ban throughout the world. We do not want nuclear tests in the United Kingdom, America, Russia, China or France at all'? There is none of that. With the Democrats there have to be scare tactics; there has to be propaganda. All the time there has to be the pretence that this Bill has, the pretence that we have a nuclear free zone. I remind the Senate of what we are talking about. We are talking about the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. What is a zone? It is a total area which contains within it the particular territories and waters about which we are talking. Everything within that zone shall be nuclear free. By its definition it purports to say that to the Australian people, yet the Government knows quite clearly that it has no say at all over international waters or international air space. What a nonsense! What a corruption of the truth it is that the Government and the Democrats should come here with that and then try another trick. We know that the countries within the Treaty are, first of all, non-nuclear weapon countries and, secondly, that they are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is all cosmetic. This whole argument of peace and disarmament has been bedevilled by a pretence, by cosmetics, by a kidding of the Australian people that we can get peace by mouthing peace, that we can get peace by a nuclear free zone. Nothing could be more wrong. No one can create a nuclear free zone in this world until the world is a nuclear free zone. That is what this Liberal and National Party coalition is for. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia)(12.15) —The amendments that have been moved by the Australian Democrats are nothing but a political stunt and they reek of hypocrisy. They prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this miserable group of opportunists do not give a tinker's cuss about the peace movement. It is of no use Senator Sanders flapping around there like a pelican with hiccoughs. He should just listen. The prime concern of the Democrats is survival. If the positive movement towards peace has to suffer for their survival, that is just too bad, according to the Democrats. Let me tell the Committee why I say that they are hypocrites and why this shoddy move is damaging to the positive moves towards peace. They are fully aware that in order to implement positive moves towards peace one must win government. To be able to pass legislation to make positive steps towards peace, one must be in government. To be able to have a say in the United Nations on the comprehensive test ban treaty and in all other forums which deal with positive steps towards peace one must be in government. It is necessary to be in government to pass and implement legislation. If we had to wait until the Democrats and the independents won power in this Senate or in the House of Representatives, I am afraid the holocaust would be upon us. They are not able to gain a single seat in the House of Representatives. Even if they had 80 per cent of the seats in this Senate the most they could bring about would be a double dissolution. That is the most they could achieve. Let us put this grubby little move of theirs into the open. The only thing it can achieve in this forum is to hold up the Treaty of Rarotonga, and they know that. They know damn well that that is all it can do-hold up that Treaty. The very fact that they tried to introduce their Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Bill this morning proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they mucked it up. They tried to take part of our platform and use it for their gains, and they mucked it up. Otherwise, they would not have made that move this morning. The only reason that these amendments were moved was to put people in the Australian Labor Party who have fought hard inside the Party in an invidious position. That is all the Democrats have done. They know damn well that there is no way of their gaining anything except to make it difficult for people inside the Labor Party, people who have fought where the power lies. To implement any positive move towards peace, one must have that legislative power, and the Democrats know it. They are jeopardising their position and putting the peace movement back. What they are doing is inimical to the interests of the peace movement. The Democrats hope to embarrass the people in the Labor Party and to have them replaced with people who have opposite views. We are within an ace within the Party of doing something practical, and the Democrats are trying to demolish that in order that they may survive. They should not kid themselves; we are awake to them. We know exactly what they are after, and I am not copping it from them. Let us see how hypocritical they are. The first amendment the Democrats have moved states: . . . Australia will refuse to allow the supply of Australian uranium to France until France ceases testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific region. It was taken out of our platform. Before we would introduce that we would put it into proper legislative form, but let us look at the Democrats' hypocrisy. That is what they signed; that is what they agreed to. I thought that the Democrats were opposed to the mining and export of Australian uranium altogether. I understood that their position was unconditional. Senator Sanders —It is your policy. Don't you want to support your policy? Senator McINTOSH —Do not try to flummox round it. I understood that Senator Sanders's position was quite clear-that he was against the mining and the export of uranium. Let us just look at the amendment he signed. Are the Democrats now saying that they will not mind exporting uranium to France if the French stop testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific? That is exactly what they are saying. Senator Sanders —It is your policy. Senator McINTOSH —It is what they are saying. In other words, if the French want to go to the Kerguelen Islands, Senator Sanders would not mind. Senator Sanders —It was better than you would have done. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —Senator Sanders, for the last time, obey Standing Orders or I will discipline you. Senator McINTOSH —The Democrats' first amendment says that they are in favour of France receiving uranium from this country provided that it stops testing at Mururoa Atoll. That is what they are saying in their amendment. So do not try to flummox round it. Senator Sanders has made it quite clear that the Democrats are now saying that they will not mind exporting uranium to France if the French stop testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. I agree that they should stop testing there. Senator Sanders said in his speech at the second reading stage that France was proceeding at breakneck speed with its nuclear power program and that France is a likely location for the next Chernobyl. If the Democrats think that, why does their Bill not call for a cessation of uranium exports to France-full stop? It is because it did not suit them. They are more interested in damaging those people inside the Labor Party who have been working hard for years and years to make positive steps towards peace, in order that the Democrats may survive in this chamber. That is their only motive. They have no other motive. The plain truth is that there is no principle at all in their move. All the Democrats hope to achieve by their amendments to this Bill is to delude sufficient numbers of people into thinking that progress will be made against the nuclear industry if those people vote for them at the next election. What garbage! They have no chance of getting a seat in the House of Representatives, let alone gaining any more seats here. As I said earlier, they should tell the public that, if they had 80 per cent of the seats in here, all they could do is bring about a double dissolution. That is all they could do. Senator Crichton-Browne —They cannot do that by themselves. Senator McINTOSH —They cannot do that. They are playing politics for their own survival. They are not concerned with sticking to their principles. The Democrats might think that they are so clever using the wording from the ALP platform, but it was a rather stupid move and they mucked it up. The Democrats know that the coalition parties and the Government will oppose them. They know that they cannot get their Bill through the Senate. Nevertheless, they are still hoping that they can steal votes from the Labor Party and from the peace movement and delude the peace movement. They know that they have put their names to a Bill which commits them to allow uranium exports to France if France stops nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific. By so doing, they have publicly compromised their own principles and sown the seeds of doubt about their integrity in the minds of their own supporters. That is what they have done. I do not know what kind of achievement they think this is. Perhaps they believe that they can embarrass that section of the Labor Party which continues to fight for social justice and to press for progress against future nuclear nightmares. But what is the good of that? The Democrats present themselves as the messiahs of the peace movement, but they have come unstuck. Sooner or later the voters will realise that the minority Party, playing easy games with other parties' policies in the Senate, can represent no serious challenge to the things they oppose. Sooner or later they will realise that there is no easy way forward on these issues. Hard work is required, and the long term solution lies in becoming actively involved in the working and the direction of the Labor Party, not in wasting time supporting minority parties such as the Democrats. I welcome the Bill from the Democrats because it offers peace activists and other voters a good opportunity to reflect hard on the ultimate ineffectiveness of the Democrats. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.24) —The squalid character of this particular move by the Australian Democrats has been made very clear in the very effective speech just made by my colleague Senator McIntosh. Senator Durack —It was better than you could have done. Senator GARETH EVANS —It took a slightly different course-I acknowledge that-but was no less effective because of that. I think the salient points can be quickly mentioned again because they very effectively make the point as to just how hypocritical, how squalid and how tactically adventurous this particular move is without having any sound core of principle, consistency or integrity about it. The Australian Democrats argue, through Senator Sanders, that Australian uranium is going to France-into nuclear weapons. They argue that with great vigour, but not with any factual support. They do not, however, seek to ban the supply of Australian uranium to France absolutely or to ban it conditionally upon its going into nuclear weapons; they make it conditional only upon the cessation of tests in the South Pacific. So there is no coherent linkage between the argument they advance and the particular proposition they put to the Committee to vote upon. Again, the Democrats argue that no Australian uranium should be exported anywhere in the world, not just to France but to no other country, because of their opposition not only to its finishing up in nuclear weapons but also to its forming part of the fuel cycle anywhere. But that is not the form in which they put this particular proposition before the chamber; they put it forward in a very narrow and confined way as limited to uranium exports to France, compromising their own stated principles in the process. Again, they argue that the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty should be supported at all costs. We hear all sorts of enthusiastic support for that particular Treaty and for this legislation which will enable us to ratify it and bring it into force immediately this week. But the particular motion that they move today, and the form in which they move the motion, makes it impossible for that goal to be realised. As Senator McIntosh has said, the way in which they have cast their amendments is not to incorporate some new prohibition into the legislation which people may or may not agree with. The way in which they have cast them is to make the result of passing the amendments an open-ended and effectively permanent delay of the South Pacific nuclear free legislation coming into force, because they have made its coming into force contingent upon the passage of some wholly new and different piece of legislation. The Democrats want the Government to completely reshape its legislative program, accept the Democrats' priorities rather than its own, and go down a track which we have already indicated we cannot and will not go down and about which we have made a government decision. They do all these things and they advance all these arguments, turn themselves on top of their heads and perform in this fashion, simply in order, as Senator McIntosh said, to glean some cheap thrills and to make some quick points-they hope-in favour of their increasingly dwindling constituency outside who might be disposed to take them seriously. There is no way that anyone would take seriously this kind of transparently hypocritical, shallow and shabby little manoeuvre that confronts us today. I have made clear, and I need to for the record, that although the question of uranium sales to France is one on which strong opinions are held-certainly very strong opinions within the Labor movement, for understandable reasons given our policy on this matter-it is a matter on which the Government and the parliamentary Party have made a decision. Accordingly, there is no conceivable basis on which Senator Sanders's separate legislation would be supported by the Government. I make it clear that the Government respects those who take a different view about this legislation, but we do, nonetheless, believe that it is well founded on its merits. I have to say, for the record, that the reason why the Government decided not to continue with the ban on uranium sales to France, making that ban conditional upon the cessation of its tests in the Pacific, has a solid foundation. I think that, once again for the record, four quick points should be made in support of that government position. The first point is that there is no question of any Australian uranium going to the nuclear devices being exploded in those tests or, indeed, into the French nuclear weapon program generally. The reality is that France uses its own uranium, of which it produces some 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes per annum, about half its total consumption, without any need to rely on any imported uranium for that particular purpose. The reality is, further, that the safeguards arrangements or agreements with which Australia is party with France, bilaterally and through Euratom, guarantee that Australian uranium will not be used for this purpose. Those paper documents or treaties are supported by practical, on the ground inspection arrangements which ensure in practice that the safeguards in the treaties are observed and that no Australian uranium is diverted for that purpose. It is further the case, as I said in reply on the second reading and which I do not need to spell out as a result, that the physical organisation of the French nuclear fuel cycle-the separation in practice between civil and military fuel cycle installations-itself guarantees that. The second point in support of the Government's decision on this matter is that the moral and political impact of the Australian ban in the past had been negligible. It was not a situation of the kind we have talked about in the context of South African sanctions and it was never like a South African situation. There was never any question of other suppliers being interested in joining any similar boycott and thus imposing physical pressure on the French and on French facilities, nor was there any realistic financial pressure being placed upon the French in the particular economic and price circumstances that prevailed for the duration of the ban where the spot market was providing a price for uranium that was very significantly lower at the time-it is turning around slowly over time-than the long term contract price for the Australian uranium which our ban was ensuring we were not obtaining. The third point to be made is that the gesture that we were making was a very expensive gesture and one which, while perhaps it had a considerable amount of symbolic weight, simply could not be afforded at a time when, firstly, its moral and political impact had proved negligible, as I have just said, and secondly, when the Australian economy was in such a condition of obvious need for every available contribution to be made both to the balance of payments and to the Budget. The figures are by now well-known. It was not just a matter of the $41m-worth of accumulated liability in meeting the contractual obligation to the supplier before this financial year; it was not just a matter of the additional $25m that we were going to pay out this financial year-which between them represented a return, both to the Budget and to the balance of payments, of $66m. Nor was it even a matter of the $26m that we would have had to pay out to Queensland Mines Ltd next year and the $13m the year after. Rather, in addition to all of that, there was the question of the $200m a year or so worth of uranium which could reasonably be expected to be able to be supplied to the French civil nuclear power industry in the 1990s in a situation of renewed demand that we are all expecting will in fact occur. There was an obvious set of financial and economic constraints which may certainly have been able to be put to one side and borne on the chin if there was some utility about the policy in terms of its actual effect; but taking into account, as the other side of the coin, the manifest ineffectuality of the policy, those considerations were pretty pressing. The fourth and final point which led the Government to make the decision that it did, looking at the issue purely on its internal merits, was that we thought there were better ways of pursuing that same objective of seeking better behaviour by the French in the South Pacific. The passage of this South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, with its protocols, being open since yesterday for signature by the nuclear powers, with all the international pressure that that places upon them-on France in particular, to behave like a reasonable international citizen-and the comprehensive test ban treaty that we are continuing to pursue very actively and vigorously in Geneva all add together as ways in which pressure can still very usefully be applied on France to get it to stop those tests in the Pacific which we all universally agree it would be far better, in the interests of humankind, and not least the region, were they to stop. Having said all that and having put all those points on the record to clarify why the Government's position is not one of support for Senator Sanders's substantive legislation and why we made the decision we have and cannot support it, I come back to making the point, once again, that by the way in which this particular amendment is cast, it links this South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill to Senator Sanders's own try-on so far as his own legislative priorities are concerned. Because of the procedural bind into which Senator Sanders has got himself by virtue of trying to be too clever by half as a result of manipulating the procedures in that way, the only result of his presenting the amendment in this form and its being passed would be, in effect, permanent delay in the enactment of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and the permanent non-ratification of that Treaty, which is something none of us wish to ensure. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(12.36) —I must admit to some embarrassment about this whole debate. I find the manner in which the debate has developed completely unacceptable. I find it extraordinary that we should be engaged in a squabble on a subject to which there must be some clear solution. I find it very difficult to accept that we should be engaging in such a very important debate in terms of the past. I am astonished that Senator Sir John Carrick, who endeavours to reach the position that I support, uses terms that are now outdated and, in so doing, reveals that events have bypassed him. For instance, he still uses the word `deterrence' when it is fairly obvious-- Senator Sir John Carrick —Your Government is resting on it as a policy. So all in your Government and all your Party are using it. Senator GEORGES —Yes, that could be quite correct. Nevertheless, let me say that if they are guilty of that, so is Senator Sir John Carrick. We are beyond the stage of deterrence now. The powers are now racing to a position of ensuring that they can survive a conflict and, by the use of massive technology, can achieve a victory, no matter what the cost. Senator Crichton-Browne —That doesn't remove the role of deterrence. Senator GEORGES —The honourable senator can talk as much as he likes about deterrence. I listened to the honourable senator's speech. He engaged in sabre rattling and used past techniques in support of his argument. He argued that one can survive only from a position of strength. However, he must appreciate that our opponents are saying exactly the same thing. The inevitable conclusion of such a policy is massive destruction and possibly the complete elimination of all species upon this earth. It seems to me that that almost inevitable conclusion is not realised in this place. I find that the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill, which the Australian Democrats are seeking to amend, reveals the weakness of the Government's position. It has been pointed out that the Government's position is contradictory, that its proposal to establish a nuclear free zone is subject to so many qualifications that it is merely an exercise in futility. We cannot establish a nuclear free zone unless all nuclear activity is excluded. We cannot allow testing of any sort, we cannot allow the porting of nuclear vessels and we cannot allow bases if we are to achieve a nuclear free zone. Senator Sir John Carrick argues that because this approach is in place the whole concept, therefore, is incorrect. It is not. We should be endeavouring to achieve a reversal of thinking, a reversal of activity, which will take us away from the brink of destruction to the possibility of peace. If that is what Senator Sir John Carrick desires, he should be supporting-- Senator Sir John Carrick —I am supporting a nuclear free world. Senator GEORGES —To achieve that, let us support the establishment of a zone in the first place. Let us change the attitude and the thinking. That has been the purpose of the peace movement in this country, and those who support it, which honourable senators opposite so devastatingly denigrated yesterday-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Not all of it. Senator GEORGES —Yes, they did. In the past five years the peace movement has endeavoured to achieve a change in the thinking of people. Instead of thinking in terms of war and destruction-those terms have been used by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber-we should be thinking in terms of peace. The peace movement has succeeded in making governments and parties in this country adopt some change of attitude. That is why the International Year of Peace was put in place. In spite of criticisms, it has been successful in achieving some useful initiatives by government and by this Parliament. The peace movement sought time, in the hope that, somehow, there would be a breakthrough. That breakthrough has taken place. The great leaders of the world have been able to get together and talk in a constructive way and that, to many of us, is very encouraging. In fact, a breath of fresh air seemed to sweep through the world after the first summit meeting of the leaders. However, that breath of fresh air seems to have passed this place by because we are still debating this subject with old terms and attitudes. We are still going out and saying: `Let's fight, let's continue the confrontation, let's get more and more powerful'. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —Senator Georges, would you relate your remarks to either the amendments or the Committee stage of the Bill. Senator GEORGES —I will take the same amount of time to get to that particular point as did Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Gareth Evans at the beginning of this Committee debate. Mr Temporary Chairman, you were not in the chair at the time-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —No, I was not, but I am in the chair now. Would you relate your comments to the business before the Chair. Senator GEORGES —Nevertheless, I am getting to the amendments. I am merely indicating the weakness of the position which has been revealed by the support for both the legislation and the amendments before us, which will not achieve what the Democrats intended. Mr Temporary Chairman, you have broken my train of thought. Maybe it would be unfair to say that that might have been your intention. Let me get back to the fact that the leaders have met; there has been a change-a substantial change; and there has been an attempt to get some understanding. That is why I am perturbed by the events in the United States of America which have the possibility of damaging the credibility of President Reagan at a time when it ought not be challenged. It is very important that Gorbachev and Reagan are allowed to continue, without interference from militarists, working towards that reconciliation which is the hope of us all. Let me get back to the Democrats' amendments. Although I am sympathetic to their intention, I must admit that I cannot quite understand what their tactics are. However, they are endeavouring to remind the Government and the Australian Labor Party of its policy. I find it exceptionally difficult to understand how the Party could break its recently established policy and export uranium to France. I cannot quite understand that. I was suspended from the Party for a beach of Party policy. I do not think I breached the Party policy but it was stated that I did. I was suspended for that. Yet the whole Party can break its policy and remain without any sort of criticism or penalty. What I say might be influenced by the fact that what has been meted out to me is not meted out to others. As a result of that incident, I can speak much more freely than I once would have. Consideration interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to his extraordinary suggestion yesterday that the tax affairs of the Treasurer of Australia, the man responsible for the whole taxation system and the man whom Senator Richardson intends to make the next Prime Minister, should be treated just like those of any other taxpayer and remain purely a matter between Mr Keating and the Commissioner of Taxation. My question concerns yet another example of the appalling double standards of the members of this Government. Does the Minister recall that when Mr John Reid was appointed by the Fraser Government to the Committee of Review of Commonwealth Administration he was bitterly attacked by the then Leader of the Opposition Mr Hayden, who alleged that he was involved in bottom of the harbour activities? Does the Minister recall that Mr Hayden moved a motion in the House of Representatives condemning the appointment and calling on the Government to have Mr Reid stand down from the Committee and from other boards until-I quote from Mr Hayden's motion-`these matters have been fully investigated'? Does the Minister suggest that the tax affairs of Mr Reid, a non-elected private citizen doing a job for the Government who was subsequently given a complete clearance by the Commissioner of Taxation, were of sufficient public interest to require him to step down while the allegations were investigated, but that doubts about the taxation affairs of the second-most influential Minister in this Government, the Treasurer of Australia, are, as has been said by Senator Button, to be no business of the Government, the Parliament or the people? Why does the Government not demand of its own Treasurer the same standards it sought to apply to a private citizen only four years ago? Senator BUTTON —I understand the importance of these questions to the Opposition when it is getting editorial headlines such as `Dry rot' and `Rising damp' describing its attitudes to the economy. No wonder honourable members opposite have to concentrate on the delay of the Treasurer in filing a tax return. I can understand their concern. Senator Chaney —Let us see what the people of Australia think about you and your defence. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney is getting a bit hysterical again. He should calm down. The fact of the matter is that this issue, which, as I said, involves a delay by the Treasurer in the filing of a tax return, has been the subject of a statement by him to the House of Representatives. It has been a matter of public debate and the desperate attempts of the Opposition to extend it into some major tax scandal are rather pathetic. I said yesterday that the contents of a tax return are a matter between the Commissioner of Taxation and an individual citizen of this country. That is a matter of record and it is a matter of law, and the Opposition ought to begin to realise that. Senator Chaney tried to draw an analogy between a public debate which was taking place about contrived tax avoidance schemes which flourished-- Senator Chaney —Oh! Senator BUTTON —Yes, and which were the subject of comment by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union and others; a series of tax schemes which thrived under members of the Opposition when they were in government under the treasurership of Mr John Howard. Those were matters of public discussion, and Mr Reid was not asked to make public his personal tax returns in any allegations made by Mr-- Senator Chaney —We haven't asked for that either. We have asked whether the Government is satisfied. Senator BUTTON —No, Senator Chaney tried to put into issue yesterday the contents of Mr Keating's tax return, which is a matter-- Senator Chaney —You have a very bad memory. Senator BUTTON —No, Senator Chaney did. He tried to put it in issue by making some shonky allegations about whether he had owned part of an antique shop at some stage or other. That is what the honourable senator tried to do yesterday. I do not know whether it is selective memory loss or just amnesia from which the Opposition suffers in relation to what it was alleging yesterday, but that is what it tried to put in issue yesterday. That is a totally different issue from the purported analogy which Senator Chaney attempts to draw on this question. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. It appears that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has lost his memory. What I asked him yesterday was whether the Government had made inquiries to satisfy itself that the Treasurer's tax affairs were in order. That was the specific inquiry that he refused to answer yesterday. I again ask him: Why is it that, in the view of the Australian Labor Party four years ago, Mr Reid's tax affairs had to be investigated and he had to stand down while that happened, when the Labor Party assertion yesterday, and again today, is that the Treasurer's tax affairs are no one's business except for the Treasurer and the Commissioner of Taxation? Senator BUTTON —The point I have already made, but which I will repeat for Senator Chaney's edification, is that it is not the business of the Government to inquire into the details of the tax returns of any citizen in this country, including the Treasurer. It is not the function of government to do that, and if the honourable senator looked at the tax legislation he would understand why. Senator Chaney —What about Mr Reid? Senator BUTTON —In respect of Mr Reid, let me make it quite clear that, as I said earlier, investigations were conducted by royal commissions and other bodies. The only time they really fell down was when that file was left in the bottom drawer by Senator Durack. Senator Durack —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I ask for the withdrawal of that remark from Senator Button, as it is the same allegation that Senator Walsh has already made here, and is about to repeat again. I ask Senator Button to withdraw that totally untrue statement that he has just made about me. Senator Sir John Carrick —Mr President, on the point of order: I remind you, Mr President, that you ruled several days ago that it was an offence for, I think, Senator Walsh to say what he said, and he had to withdraw. You ruled yesterday on an identical subject and Senator Button had to withdraw. You now have before you an aggravated offence. It is the same issue; the same comment was made; it is an aggravated offence. I draw your attention to that. Senator Button —Mr President, on the point of order: The allegation which Senator Walsh was asked to withdraw, and did withdraw, was an allegation that Senator Durack had sat on a file or kept it in his bottom drawer for a number of years when he was Attorney-General. But the allegation went further than that. It suggested that he had done that in order to protect his preselection from a collection of tax avoiders then operating in the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party. That was the allegation which Senator Walsh was asked to withdraw and did withdraw. I do not make that allegation at all. I only make the allegation which was made by the Costigan Royal Commission. Senator Chaney —Mr President, the allegation made by Senator Button was quite clear and I do not wish to dignify it by repeating it again, as he has just done, in contempt of your previous ruling-and the giggling staff of the Minister for Finance might behave properly in the Parliament as well. Senator Grimes —Oh, sit down, you pompous ass. The PRESIDENT —Order! I am in charge of the proceedings of the Senate, and if Senator Chaney has any complaint about the conduct of honourable senators I suggest that he address his remarks to me. I take it that Senator Chaney is speaking on the point of order. Senator Chaney —I am speaking on the point of order, and I am suggesting that the Leader of the Government is behaving in contempt of your earlier ruling. He repeated it, I think just to demonstrate how clever he is, and I believe that you should call him to order. The allegation he made about Senator Durack is, again, quite objectionable and should be withdrawn, and I suggest that you restrain Ministers from simply repeating these objectionable matters under the guise of responding to a point of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have checked the Hansard. On Friday Senator Walsh was asked by me, as a result of an objection by Senator Durack, to withdraw a statement made about Senator Durack along the lines outlined by Senator Button today. Yesterday Senator Button made a certain statement, to which Senator Durack took objection on the basis that there was an imputation contained in that statement. I asked Senator Button to withdraw and he withdrew. It appears to me that the statement made by Senator Button today is along the same lines as that made yesterday, and I therefore ask him to withdraw any imputation against Senator Durack contained in his statement. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I withdraw. I was just making the point that I had already made in answer to the original question that-- Senator Chaney —That you have double standards. Senator BUTTON —I am sorry, Mr President, but Senator Chaney's witticism upset me. I am making the point, which I made in my answer to the earlier part of the question, that there is a distinction between the personal tax returns of a citizen of this country which are protected by law, even though some people steal letters and things, and public discussion over matters revealed in royal commission reports about schemes deliberately devised to avoid tax. Senator Crowley having addressed a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate- Senator Chaney-On a point of order, Mr President: The whole of that question is clearly out of order. It does not relate to the Minister's ministerial responsibilities. The PRESIDENT —Order! I rule the question out of order. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to the answer to me yesterday that it was: . . . most unusual, if not unprecedented, for any pay as you earn taxpayer who is entitled to a refund but who is late in lodging a return to have any penalty imposed. How does that stand up against the case quoted by Senator Collard on Friday in which a taxpayer, who believed he was entitled to a refund, was prosecuted and fined for not lodging his return? I might interpolate that since that question was asked, quite a number of people have called members on this side of the House to repeat experiences of a similar kind. Will the Government ask the Commissioner of Taxation to review that case and any others dealt with in a similar way, in view of the fact that the Treasurer, who failed to lodge a return for 15 months, never received a summons, never went to court, and was obviously treated vastly differently from others? Senator WALSH —Senator Messner's reference to the case cited by Senator Collard, or perhaps more accurately the allegations made by Senator Collard, in Senator Messner's own words came from someone who believed they were entitled to a refund. Senator Messner has not told us whether that person in fact got a refund. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator WALSH —It is like being in the chook yard. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Senate to settle down and I ask Senator Walsh to respond to Senator Messner's question. Senator WALSH —It is certainly unusual, I am informed, for a person who was late submitting a return but who was also entitled to a refund-not thought he might have been entitled to a refund but was entitled to a refund-to be prosecuted. However, the Commissioner, I understand, exercises some discretion in this matter as he exercises his discretion on many features of the taxation law. Senator Walters —It all depends who it is. Senator WALSH —That is right up to a point, Senator Walters, because if the taxpayer concerned has a long standing, clean record with the Taxation Office, the Commissioner is likely to overlook without prosecution such technical breaches. If, however, the person concerned has a long and scungy record with the Taxation Office, like for example half the members of the Western Australian Liberal Party Finance Committee have, it would not surprise anybody if the Commissioner were to levy some penalty for what might otherwise be considered a technical breach by a taxpayer who had a long record of complying with both the spirit and letter of the taxation law. If the Opposition wants to pursue its allegations that some people get special treatment, there is, as I said yesterday, in every State what is colloquially known as a VIP section of the Taxation Office which keeps a special eye on a number of prominent people in public life and outside public life. Senator Sir John Carrick asked me why that was so. I am not sure why it is so, but he should have asked that question for seven years he was in government because it existed throughout that entire period. Some people might see the existence of such a unit as being something to provide favoured treatment to particular people. It can, however, be seen the other way, and that is that the unit keeps an eye on particular people to subject them to more scrutiny than taxpayers who do not hold public positions or are in other ways prominent would receive. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Minister's reply to the effect that he apparently believes that some individuals who have a bad record with lodgment of returns become more heavily scrutinised by the Tax Office, would he say that in the case of the Treasurer, where there was a failure to lodge a return for the 1985 taxation year and a failure to lodge a return for the subsequent financial year, there should have been issued a summons against him immediately following 31 August 1986 for the lodgment of his 1986 return? If that did not happen, why not? Senator WALSH —On the question of the facts, Senator Messner has got them wrong. I did not say that people who had a bad record were subject to special scrutiny. In the context of the so-called VIP sections of the Taxation Office, I said that people who are public officials or hold important positions in public life or are otherwise important-- Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! There are far too many interjections. Senator WALSH —Particularly from the `Hibernator', Mr President. I said that people who are in prominent positions might have their returns scrutinised by the VIP section. The question about those who have a scungy record over a long period, like half the members of the Western Australian Liberal Party Finance Committee, related to whether the Commissioner would seek to impose a penalty on somebody who had technically breached the law. They are two quite separate issues. If the Opposition is so interested in having the law fully applied on every conceivable occasion and maximum penalties extracted and of the law being absolutely enforced, I suggest it should start by finding out who stole the mail. The Leader of the Opposition turned up with a photocopy-not a file duplicate but a photocopy-of the original of a letter posted to the Treasurer by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in New South Wales; a photocopy of which, which was never received by the Treasurer, fell into the hands of the Leader of the Opposition or fell off the back of a truck, which was the way he evaded the question. Somebody stole that letter, somebody took a photocopy of the original and, through one or more intermediaries, it finished up in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to pursue criminal activity and secure prosecutions for such activity, I suggest it put its Leader on the stand and ask him where he got that stolen letter. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of the comments made by the Managing Director of Borg Warner (Australia) Ltd, Mr Stone, in praise of this Government's attitude to technical development in industry? Does he agree with Mr Stone's reported views about the inadequacy of the previous coalition Government's car plans and approach to research and development in Australia? Senator BUTTON —I suppose it is surprising that Mr Stone's comments have been drawn to my attention. As the Managing Director of a major engineering company in Australia, his comments are important. Mr Stone made these comments at a New South Wales Science and Technology Council forum at the weekend. He said: The present Federal Government has recognised the importance of building a strong technical and development base for all industry. They have emphasised this with 150 per cent tax incentives for research and development and also specific grants schemes within the automotive industry. Mr Stone went on to say that the previous Government had ignored the importance of research and development to the point where a great deal of the research and development capability of industrialists was moved off shore. He said that there had been no regard for the serious consequences of dismantling one of the most important foundations for engineering and manufacturing technology in Australia. We have had discussions from time to time in the Senate about the export capacity of Australian manufacturing and the success or otherwise of Australian manufacturers competing also in the domestic market. This Government has persistently said that that will happen only when the right conditions are created in terms of technology awareness and attention to a whole range of issues, such as product design and development, which has not happened here for years. Senator Chaney —Tax and interest rates. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney indicates by way of interjection that he does not regard that as important and that he thinks that interest rates and tax are important. They are important to him, but the issues I have been talking about are far more important to the medium to long term future of Australian manufacturers and their capacity to export. I welcome the comments made by Mr Stone at this important seminar at the weekend. Those comments merely reflect the general regard for the Government's attempts to revitalise Australian manufacturing industry on a much sounder basis than under the previous Government. Senator HAINES —Yesterday the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs responded to my question about Australia's decision to vote in favour of a World Bank loan to Chile by saying that Australia held to the rule that decisions of the World Bank should not be influenced by political considerations, only economic ones. Is the Minister aware that, unlike Australia, the United States has been prepared to abstain from voting on a World Bank loan to Chile in the past as a way of protesting against human rights violations in that country? For the Minister's information, in a report by the United States Information Service, East Asia and the Pacific: Wireless File No. 224, the State Department spokesperson, Mr Charles Redman, said that while the United States appreciated `the merits of the particular loan, as well as Chile's free market economic policies', the United States also recognised `the absence of a corresponding free and responsible political environment together with serious, persistent human rights problems-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is making a statement rather than asking a question. I ask her to ask a question or resume her seat. Senator HAINES —Accordingly, since the United States abstained from voting on the loan, will the Australian Government therefore consider altering its present policy-- Senator MacGibbon —On a point of order, Mr President: Are the Democrats going to run candidates in Chile? The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator HAINES —I will repeat the last part of my question. Will the Australian Government therefore consider altering its present policy towards the World Bank and take appropriate action to censure Chile when similar situations arise in the future? The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask honourable senators to consider the length of their questions. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that the United States abstained from voting on the World Bank loan to Chile, apparently for the reasons spelt out by the State Department spokesman and quoted at some length by Senator Haines. To the extent that that reflects a very different attitude to the Pinochet regime from that which was current at the time of the overthrow of the Allende Government in 1973, I suppose that the statement of the United States spokesman is very much to be welcomed. However, it does not alter Australia's view that, however much we deplore the present political and human rights situation in Chile-as we do and as we said we did in our explanation of our vote at the World Bank-we regard ourselves as being bound by the articles of the World Bank to look only at economic considerations in the decision making of that institution. That is the position I described yesterday. That is the basis on which we acted as we did and the basis on which we will continue to act in similar situations in the future. Australia makes up its own mind on this as on other matters of foreign policy. I am fascinated by the Australian Democrats' obvious conversion to the cause of `me tooism' with the United States-`whither thou goest, there we go'. What a sad decline for a once great party yet again. It should be evident that there are many issues, including those arising in relation to a number of international institutions, in which we form quite different views of our obligations and responsibilities from those which, for political or other reasons, the United States adopts. I remind the honourable senator of our differences of view over the role of UNESCO. I remind her of our differences with the United States about the comprehensive test ban treaty, the SALT II violation, the strategic defence initiative and Central American policy. It just happens to be the case that at the moment we differ about our obligations under the very specific articles of the World Bank charter. Senator CHILDS —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen the Liberal Party's policy on industrial relations, which allows the use of so-called voluntary agreements for businesses employing 50 or fewer employees and which will affect 2.1 million employees, or one-third of the work force? Is it also a fact that this provision, if it were constitutionally possible, would lead to exploitation of the many wage and salary earners employed in these small businesses, and would also lead to industrial anarchy? How is the Government's policy different from this policy? Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: That question clearly relates to Opposition matters and in any event it calls for expressions of opinion. Although the question is phrased as a fact, it can be no more than an expression of opinion as to what the result of that policy might be. The Standing Orders clearly state that a question shall not ask for an expression of opinion. Two of those questions at least-perhaps all of them-do precisely that. Senator Childs —Further to that point of order, Mr President, my third question asked about the Government's policy, and I would argue that that places the question clearly in order. The PRESIDENT —I rule that the question is in order. Senator WALSH —In support of your ruling, Mr President, I observe that the first question asked by Senator Childs was soliciting a fact. He asked whether it was a fact that an industrial relations policy affecting firms with 50 or fewer employees would encompass about 2.1 million employees, or about one-third of the work force. I am not certain, but that sounds about right to me. I believe that such a policy would affect that number of employees and about one-third of the work force. I was asked whether I have seen the Liberal Party's policy. I cannot say that I have actually read the document, but of course I have seen Press reports of it. As I understand the proposition being touted by the Opposition, it is that there should be amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which take the question of wage determination for firms of that size out of the jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. That is a clear misstatement of what is contained in the policy and I ask you, Mr President, whether a Minister who has conceded that he has not read the policy is to be permitted to answer the question on the basis of something he has not read. Senator Elstob —I will go and get it for him. Senator Chaney —I don't care what you do, Senator. What I am suggesting, Mr President, is that, firstly, the Minister has said that he has not read the policy. He has just made a statement about the policy which, I can assure the Senate, is totally inaccurate. I would therefore ask you to rule this question or this answer out of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Chaney knows that, the question having been ruled in order, the Minister can answer it in any manner he so chooses provided he does not get into the area of debate. Senator WALSH —This time, partially I suppose in support of Senator Chaney, I was about to say that I am not, however, sure whether that is the Opposition's policy because the Opposition's policy on youth which was widely leaked over the weekend suggests that-- Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Stolen. Senator Chaney —Stolen, perhaps. Senator WALSH —No, not stolen-given away. It was not posted, I do not think, and intercepted in the post. What that policy suggests, of course, is that young workers or would-be workers and employers should conspire to flout the awards of the Commission whereas the other policy, as I understand it, seeks to change the law. One seeks to change the law and the other seeks to break it. I do not know which, if either, of those policies the Opposition is actually committed to. I was asked how the Opposition policy differs from the Government policy. The Government does not believe that wage outcomes in a free-for-all out there in the industrial jungle would be more satisfactory than they are under the centralised wage fixing policy which this Government has followed. I remind the Senate that that policy has delivered an unprecedented degree of wage restraint, in stark contrast to the years immediately preceding its adoption, 1981 and 1982, and also in stark contrast to the experience in overseas countries, most particularly the United Kingdom throughout the early 1980s. Another point that should be made is that it is constitutionally dubious, I understand, whether the use of the corporations power effectively to nullify the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would succeed. I will not canvass that. But as a question of fact, even if the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act were amended or overruled and small firms were taken out of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, there is nothing any Commonwealth government could do in isolation to exclude from the power of State commissions and tribunals jurisdiction over those small firms, or indeed any other firm, should an application be made to a State commission to exercise that jurisdiction. So whether it is right or wrong, whether the policy is soundly conceived or not, the plain fact is that it is non-implementable. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the new substantiation rules introduced by Treasurer Keating define a taxpayer's place of abode for tax purposes as the residence where he or she lives with his or her family and sleeps at night? Is it further a fact that it is possible for a taxpayer to deduct an allowance paid for travelling expenses only if that money is paid to that taxpayer living away from the usual place of abode? Can the Minister confirm that the Treasurer lives with his wife and family in Canberra but received $17,600 in travel allowance, allegedly because he was away from the never-occupied home he owns in Sydney? Does the Minister agree that the Treasurer would not be able to claim the cost of his rental in Canberra against the allowance because such expenditure is not allowable as a deduction? Does this not mean that the Treasurer could be liable for more than $10,000 in additional tax, thus destroying his claim that he is entitled to a tax refund? Senator WALSH —The short answer is no, and for this reason: The Commissioner of Taxation does not require substantiation of travelling allowances. However, if the Opposition would like that changed, I am perfectly willing to put that forward to the Treasurer for consideration. So everybody in this Parliament, every public servant who receives travelling allowance and probably a number of people in the private sector who also receive travelling allowance would have to substantiate that the allowance paid to them was in fact spent. If the Opposition wants to harass not only all members of parliament-they are a small minority of the people we are talking about-but also every public servant and every person in the private sector who receives a travelling allowance-- Senator Chaney —But they are not defrauding the system like Keating. The PRESIDENT —Order! There are far too many interjections. Senator Button —I have tolerated Senator Chaney for most of Question Time. He just said that those people are not defrauding the system like Mr Keating. I ask for a withdrawal of that. By a process of innuendo and smear people have been attempting to establish that. They have got nowhere. They have established that the Treasurer was late lodging his tax return; that is all they have established. It should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Chair did not hear the words used by the Leader of the Opposition but if he did use the words attributed to him by the Leader of the Government. I ask him to withdraw. Senator Chaney —Mr President, the point I was making of course was-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. Senator Chaney —I withdraw, Mr President. The point I was making, of course, is that Mr Keating's position is not the same as that of the people to whom the Minister is referring. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn. Senator WALSH —Mr President, as I was saying, if the Opposition wants to harass all those people who receive travelling allowances, I will put that proposal to the Treasurer for consideration. If he chooses to take it further it can be considered by the Government. Indeed, I suppose at least with respect to some politicians there might be a case for doing that. For example, the present Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party have brought up their whole families in Canberra in houses that they do not pay rent on because they own them. The former Leader of the National Party was paying all of $19 a week rental purchase, buying a house for $19 a week rent, until about three years ago. If the Opposition believes that because of the past behaviour of the former National Party Leader and the present behaviour of the present Leader and his Deputy the substantiation of travel allowance to members of parliament should be tightened up that is a proposition I am willing to put to the Treasurer. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Is the Minister aware of the Federal Opposition's claims that the tax cuts that came into effect yesterday are `a sleight of hand'? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the actual impact of the cuts on the women of Australia? Senator RYAN —As usual, the Opposition in making its comments on tax reform has concerned itself only with people at the upper echelons of income and has ignored those in poverty or on low incomes. Many people on low incomes and low income earners in part time and low status jobs, are women. I am pleased to say that the Government's tax reform package will be of particular advantage to them. For example, part time workers and all those people reliant on pension or benefit as their main or sole source of income will be assisted by the increase in the tax free threshold from $4,595 to $5,100. When it is considered that women receive 77 per cent of social security payments, it is clear that most of the 130,000 people who will pay no tax this year as a result of the threshold change will be women. Of course, many of these women are now bearing the sole responsibility for children. Forty per cent of all women in the work force are part timers and normally earn less than $10,000 a year. After 1 December, that is, after yesterday, they will be paying 13 per cent less tax than they now pay. On average, women in full time employment earn $19,000 a year. They will receive an additional $5.25 per week after yesterday. Together with the effective flat tax cut of $7.60 a week that the Labor Government put in place in November 1984, women and other low income earners are seeing a substantial increase in their disposable income. The tax reform package will rid women of the yoke of the Liberals' years of neglect, when the failure to stamp out tax rorts or ensure the integrity of the tax system left women in a position of maximum disadvantage. I conclude by noting the total lack of interest by honourable senators opposite in the effects of the tax cuts on women. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, follows the question asked by Senator Messner which he failed to answer. Is it a fact that the new substantiation rules, which were introduced by the present Treasurer, Mr Keating, define a taxpayer's place of abode for tax purposes as the residence where he or she lives with his or her family and sleeps at night? Is it, further, a fact that it is possible to deduct an allowance paid for travelling expenses-that is, such an allowance is not assessable-only if that money is paid to a taxpayer for nights when he is away from that usual place of abode? Senator WALSH —I was asked whether the definition in the Income Tax Assessment Act is as Senator Chaney claims it is. I do not know, but it has no relevance to this question because the Commissioner of Taxation does not require substantiation of travelling allowances. Senator Messner —That is not the point. Senator WALSH —It is the point. I would have thought that even Senator Durack would have been able to see that that is the point, particularly as he was once Attorney-General. Indeed, I am reminded that there was a time when three well-known players in the Victorian Football League were known as the `Terminator', the `Dominator' and the `Penetrator'. These names were derived from events in their lives off the football field. If Senator Durack had ever played VFL football he would have been known as the `Hibernator'. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney —Mr President, having been properly chastised by you earlier in Question Time, I rise on a point of order and say that this continual-- Senator Elstob —That is a disgrace. Fancy saying you have been chastised! Senator Chaney —The word `chastised' is a clean word; it is all right, Senator. I am just suggesting-- Senator Puplick —He wouldn't know-it's got more than one syllable in it. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Senate to come to order. Senator Chaney is entitled to take a point of order and he shall be heard. Senator Chaney —Mr President, my point simply is that the Minister has again set out to insult Senator Durack and I ask you to ask him to withdraw. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Walsh to withdraw his statement in relation to Senator Durack. I also ask him to respond to the question asked by Senator Chaney without going into parenthesis. Senator WALSH —The Commissioner has not required substantiation, for income tax purposes, of travelling allowances. Now the Opposition- Senator Walters — He hasn't withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —I am sorry; I withdraw, Mr President. The Tax Commissioner's reason for doing that is that those TAs were awarded by tribunals and the tribunals had satisfied themselves that that was the appropriate amount of payment and so on. It seems to me that the Opposition is really saying, insofar as it makes any sense at all, that it was an error for the TA to be received, which is quite a separate question from the question of whether it was subject to income tax. The law for that particular case, as far as income tax is concerned, is quite clear, as I understand it; that is, that it does not require substantiation. If the Opposition wants to argue that it should not have been paid in the first place-that seems to be what it is arguing-that is a separate question and it is one on which the Government will be quite happy to have a debate at some time other than this week, when we have more time. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I agree with the Minister that the last point is a separate question that we can ask separately. I note that the Minister has said that travel allowance does not require substantiation. Is he saying that the Tax Commissioner does not even require to know whether or not one was travelling? Is the Minister representing the Treasurer asserting that it is acceptable to receive a travelling allowance when one is, under the taxation rules, not travelling but at home? Senator WALSH —The position as I understand it-at least for the 1985-86 financial year, and, I believe, still; I am less certain of the latter-is that the Commissioner has decided that travelling allowances determined by tribunals, as this particular TA has been, do not require substantiation. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Has there been a substantial shortfall in offsets related work from overseas computer equipment suppliers? What action will the Government take to have Australian high technology firms pursue overseas suppliers known to have outstanding offsets obligations? Will the Minister consider making it compulsory for all government departments to report government purchases to the offsets secretariat? Senator BUTTON —The offsets program was revamped by this Government in 1984. At that time very substantial sums of money were outstanding in respect of offsets obligations, and a large proportion of those outstanding obligations have now been recouped. The fact of the matter is that the administration of the offsets program in the last year or so has been very vigorous and a number of Australian companies, particularly of the kind referred to by Senator Elstob, computer companies and associated technologies, have been the beneficiaries of that new system which has been directed significantly in balance towards high technology industries. I am unable to provide the particular detail which Senator Elstob requests at this time but I will obtain it and give him an answer as soon as possible. I was also asked what the Government's view is about the behaviour of certain purchasing officers in respect of the administration of the offsets system. In respect of that matter I will consider Senator Elstob's suggestion and again give him an answer in due course. Senator WATSON —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, relates to the special treatment of the Treasurer by the independent statutory office, the Australian Taxation Office. Can the Minister confirm that for taxpayers who have previously prepared their own returns, it is normal Taxation Office procedure to issue a final notice by about mid-November, followed by a summons 14 days later? Can the Minister also confirm that in the last financial year, 37,086 summonses were issued by the Taxation Office for failure to lodge a taxation return? Yesterday the Minister claimed that the Treasurer was treated in the normal way. If that is so, why did he not receive a summons like tens of thousands of other Australians? Why was special consideration given in this case by the independent statutory office, the Australian Taxation Office? Senator WALSH —I was asked why no summons was received. I do not know whether a summons was even issued. If I were to ring up the Commissioner of Taxation he would, very properly, tell me to mind my own business as to whether any summons was issued. Let us just assume that a summons was issued. It may not have been received because it might have been stolen in the mail by the Leader of the Opposition or his agent because we do know that other mail addressed to the Treasurer from the Taxation Commissioner has been stolen. The plain fact is that the Leader of the Opposition has in his possession a photocopy of the original letter, which could only have fallen into someone's hands if it was stolen. The Leader of the Opposition is either a thief or a fence, that is, a receiver of stolen property. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on the obvious point of order. The Minister should be instructed to withdraw. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark against a member of another House. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator WATSON —I ask a supplementary question. Why was special consideration given in this case? Senator WALSH —There is, to my knowledge, no special consideration, but if there has been any I will refer it to the Treasurer for reference to the Commissioner. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that the captain of the Australian rugby team is currently in South Africa apparently trying to arrange either an official or a rebel tour of South Africa? Does the Minister agree that any Australian tour would weaken international sporting boycotts against South Africa and therefore encourage the policy of apartheid? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am, of course, aware that the captain of the Australian rugby team, Andrew Slack, is presently visiting South Africa. I understand, however, that it is a private visit and in these circumstances it is not really appropriate for the Australian Government to comment on it as such. However, on the broader question of the invitation to the Australian Rugby Football Union to tour South Africa, the Government's views are really very well known. Such a visit would, in our view, be clearly inconsistent with the Gleneagles declaration and the Brisbane code of conduct. The Government is bound by the terms of the declaration and is completely opposed to either a Wallabies or a rebel rugby tour of South Africa and will discourage strongly the Australian Rugby Football Union accepting such invitations. An Australian tour would, as Senator Sibraa indicated, weaken international efforts to bring pressure on South Africa to abandon apartheid through the mechanism of the sporting boycott. The boycott has achieved considerable success in the past and the continuing unrest should serve to convince Australian sportsmen of the need for that pressure to be maintained to assist the process of change in South Africa, not only in sport but also in the political arena generally. The experiences of the rebel Australian cricketers should also serve as a warning to Australian sportsmen that the South African Government will use any sporting visit to that country for its own political ends. I understand that the ARFU executive has not yet taken a definite decision on the invitation. We hope that when that decision is taken it will be resoundingly in the negative. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of public concern at the favoured tax treatment already given the Treasurer, which is now being justified by his claim that he is only a pay as you earn taxpayer, has the Government taken steps to establish the amount of the Treasurer's interest income from his investment account with the Greater Newcastle Permanent Building Society Ltd and from his deposit with the Commonwealth Bank Finance Co. Ltd? As the requirements of the Government's farcical declaration of interest legislation enable the Treasurer not to reveal the size of such deposits or income from them, or even his profits from the sale of antique clocks, has the Government satisfied itself and will it advise the people of Australia whether the size of the Treasurer's interest income would render him liable not only to PAYE tax but also to provisional tax? If it has not done so, why not? Senator WALSH —Following the Goebbels technique of asserting something over and over again, the Opposition keeps asserting that the Treasurer has had favoured tax treatment. Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Michael Baume has asked a very serious question about a member of another House. Senator Walsh is entitled to have his explanation heard in silence. Senator WALSH —I do not believe that the Treasurer has received-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I agree with you that it is a serious question, but the Minister opened his answer by referring to the use of the Goebbels technique. I suggest that that is scarcely an expression which is likely to reduce the Opposition to silence. I ask you to ask the Minister to answer the serious question in a serious and non-abusive way. The PRESIDENT —Order! I repeat for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition that he knows that I have no control over how a Minister chooses to answer his question except as far as the realm of debate is concerned. Senator WALSH —The technique of assertion ad nauseam until the assertion becomes in the minds of many people indistinguishable from the truth is a well-known propagandist device. I simply draw attention to the fact that the Opposition continues to make an assertion which I do not believe and have no reason to believe is correct. That was then supported by a series of other assertions or allegations, the validity or otherwise of which is not known to me. I do not know whether Senator Baume thinks that everybody in Parliament should have to publish his tax return. Again, if that is the view of the Opposition, it is a view that I would be quite willing to put to the Treasurer and possibly the Government. The Treasurer has admitted he has committed an error, a technical breach of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Treasurer will be dealt with according to the established processes just as anybody else would be. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I specifically asked: Has the Government satisfied itself about matters that are revealed in the Treasurer's statement of pecuniary interests? As I said at the time, these do not outline the size of the deposits or whether the income from them would then render the Treasurer liable to provisional tax as well as PAYE tax. The burden of the question was: Has the Government satisfied itself on these matters? Senator Gareth Evans —That is not a matter for the Government; it is for the Tax Commissioner. Senator WALSH —As one of my colleagues just noted, it is a matter for the Commissioner of Taxation rather than the Government. Senator Chaney —It is a matter for the Prime Minister. Senator WALSH —Has he woken up again? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walsh, I ask you to respond to Senator Michael Baume's supplementary question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. Ministers in this Government, unlike any other government in Australia's history, are required to submit for public scrutiny their pecuniary interests without quantifying necessarily those pecuniary interests. Ministers are also required to submit to the Prime Minister the quantification of those interests. That is a Prime Ministerial matter, not a government matter. Even though I do not formally represent the Prime Minister here, I suppose that is a question that I could pass on to him informally. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I have been informed that the Government's long-awaited Green Paper on industrial democracy and employee participation may be available before the end of the year. Can the Minister confirm that this is so and can he tell us why the paper has taken so long to be made available? Senator WALSH —I am afraid that I cannot answer either part of the question-that is, `Will it be available before the end of the year?' and `Why has it taken so long?'. I suppose one cannot give iron-clad guarantees, particularly when Mr Willis is out of the country and will be until the beginning of next week, if I remember correctly. The second part of the question, `Why has it taken so long', is probably very subjective. I do not know about an answer for that, but I will try to get an answer to the first part of the question before the end of this week. Senator POWELL —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health confirm information that it is likely that the proposed Australia Card will be produced by a company called CPE Security Card, which is 50 per cent Australian-owned and 50 per cent American-owned? In particular, can the Minister inform the Senate of the extent to which the Government has considered the implications of information about Australians being held on data bases owned by Americans? What provision has been made to secure this information from foreign companies and governments, particularly in view of the reported proportion of American ownership of this company? Senator GRIMES —I have no idea who is likely to produce the Australia Card. I do not even know whether the Australia Card legislation will be passed in the Senate. Reports in the newspapers and the views of various people differ. I do know that no matter who manufactures the Australia Card the control of the very limited data which will be collected for the issue of that card will be in the hands of the Australian Government. It will be in Australian hands and will be protected by the legislation and the privacy organisation to be set up. To suggest that the information obtained will be given to the company which is to print or manufacture the card and to further suggest that because some hypothetical company is partly owned by United States interests the security of the Card will be threatened, is a flight of fancy even for someone in the Australian Democrats. Senator GIETZELT —On 15 October 1986 Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked me a question regarding the proposed international terminal and hotel development at Brisbane Airport. The Minister for Aviation advises me that a hotel/motel complex has always formed part of his Department's development plans for the new Brisbane Airport. Following an invitation for expressions of interest in April 1986 for a hotel/motel complex tenders were called in July 1986. Tender documents were forwarded to each organisation registering an expression of interest. When tenders closed three submissions had been received including one proposing a combined hotel and international terminal. This was assessed as a non-conforming tender. Only one tender conformed with the requirements. Independent legal advice was that the two non-conforming tenders could not be accepted. Negotiations have therefore proceeded with the organisation which submitted the conforming tender. A copy of the Press release from the Minister for Aviation will be made available to Senator Bjelke-Petersen. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 27 November 1986 Senator Archer asked me a question about Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence access to Australian Federal Police intelligence holdings, particularly computerised holdings. As indicated in response to Senator Archer's question of 5 June in respect of the Stewart recommendation on ABCI access to criminal intelligence, the AFP shares intelligence with the ABCI including the provision of extensive access to computer holdings. In view of the AFP's operational responsibilities to investigate organised crime as directed by government, the AFP has a continuing need to maintain a criminal intelligence function with respect to organised crime. The ABCI currently has access to approximately 80 to 85 per cent of AFP computerised intelligence holdings. If the ABCI requests information which is not shared its requirements are met in accordance with the ABCI agreement. Intelligence relating to current sensitive investigations is restricted even within the AFP on a need to know basis. I suggest that a like situation exists with other police forces participating with the ABCI. All law enforcement agencies give special treatment to current, sensitive, operational intelligence and recognise the need for careful handling of such material both inside an agency and in transmission to other agencies with an operational need to know. The ABCI has quick and ready access to the AFP criminal intelligence computerised database. Any specific inquiries can be referred by the ABCI to the AFP for assistance. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.06) —I move. That the Senate take note of the paper. Australia has been bedevilled by excessive foreign ownership, absentee landlords and excessive expatriation of wealth since it was first settled by Europeans in the late eighteenth century. Colonialism has had as its driving force the plundering of various rich and wealthy lands, Australia being one of them. Independence early this century has revolutionised many previous colonies but Australia, through close blood ties with Britain, has tended to maintain a subservient attitude which popularly has been called the cultural cringe. Even today Australians prefer to deal with large foreign companies, to buy foreign products, rely on foreign defence agreements and promote foreign things rather than support our indigenous talents. This is a real problem. Therefore, it is not unusual for our Government to seek to increase foreign ownership and control in our enterprises and to be prepared to sacrifice Australian enterprise on the altar of foreign investment. During the last year the Government has further relaxed the restriction on foreign investment and has drawn yet more teeth from the Foreign Investment Review Board. These changes include discontinuing the requirement to give Australian investors the chance to buy into a business which is subject to foreign acquisition. Foreign takeovers worth up to $5m, previously $2m, and new foreign businesses worth up to $10m, previously $5m, may now occur or operate in an unrestricted manner. However, there are some minor restrictions-in the areas of media and civil aviation. Even though a smaller range of foreign investment proposals now comes before the Board, the value considered last year was almost double that of previous years. We are left wondering how many of these proposals would have been restricted under the old guidelines. It would be useful to know whether the relaxation of the rules has encouraged this vast increase in foreign investment which has had some strange effects on the value of our dollar and has not been helpful to our export industries. One hundred per cent foreign ownership of urban real estate no longer requires approval if it is proved that Australian equity is not `reasonably available' and that the ownership proposal is not against the national interest. Land development projects no longer require 50 per cent Australian equity and are automatically approved unless they are against the national interest. Rural property sales will now be approved to foreign buyers if they propose to invest at least one-third of the purchase price in development or if they propose having 50 per cent Australian ownership and control. Mining rights can be purchased by foreign interests without any scrutiny. We are now in the business of selling off our basic raw resources-our land, our minerals and our businesses. This means that we are selling the source of our future wealth, the assets of our citizens and children and the assets of future generations. This is a new wave of colonialism taking over Australia yet again as we took over the land from the Aboriginal owners-but at least we live here. Now the people taking over are foreign absentee owners. Foreign investment in manufacturing is now wide open unless it is judged to be against the national interest. Merchant banking and insurance investments worth up to $10m and all non-banking financial institution take- overs are now automatically approved unless they are considered to be against the national interest. We have enormous problems. The bottom line is that Australia's net external debt increased from $22.1 billion in June 1984 to $51.4 billion in June 1985 and is now almost $100 billion. This more than doubling of our foreign debt in one year is now snowballing and gathering more and more debt in interest and dividends which are owed abroad. We are going headlong into a situation which could lead us to bankruptcy. Of the new investment that has come into Australia we expect only about 7 per cent on top of the takeover value. In other words, no real growth or no productive investment of any significance results from this handover of control from Australians to foreign companies. We have a disastrous situation. I believe that neither the Government nor the Opposition is handling the problem effectively. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The annual report of the Department of Communications is a massive document. I would like to take a few points from it and particularly highlight some of the chronic problems which the Department faces in its engineering area. These problems, however, get hardly any mention in the annual report, despite the fact that they are serious problems affecting the operations of the Department and the broadcasting industry. New radio and television services are not being provided to the Australian people. The supplementary licence scheme was completely undermined by a lack of political and administrative will to make it work. The record, after three years of television legislation and four years of radio legislation, is two supplementary radio licences proposed for Canberra; and one independent radio licence for Mildura, which, apparently, is under a court challenge. Annual reports should bring to the attention of the Parliament the major problems which are confronting individual departments: There is a major problem, but it has not been mentioned. Everybody in the industry is coming to me and crying about the lack of engineering skills in the Department. The Department's level of efficiency at the policy level and in terms of its failure to provide a service to the Australian people needs some scrutiny. I take, for example, the video and audio entertainment information service matter which is in a shambles. This is the proposal which involves putting through satellite entertainments to hotels. The Department did not have the ability to handle the regulations in this area in a reasonable and orderly fashion so it had to be dealt with under separate arrangements. There is absolutely no way of collecting proper licence fees from the people concerned. In the process, the current commercial television and radio operators have been disadvantaged. They pay licence fees relating to income earned from advertising. Their competitors in video and audio entertainment do not pay any such levy. Did the Department examine the potential revenue that could be obtained by these means? I do not know, but certainly we are not told so in the annual report, despite its large size and its many words. The Department mentions in its report the report by Henry Ergas which is called `Telecommunications and the Australian Economy'. The report was released in March 1986. On page 74 of the annual report we find mention, among the findings of Mr Ergas, of the following: . . . telecommunications investment levels should be increased by 10-15 per cent immediately, followed by annual investment growth of 4-8 per cent in real terms . . . investment in telecommunications infrastructure will not `crowd out' private investment . . . The Department was not very persuasive about the investment needed to establish a telecommunications manufacturing industry. The Government appears to have decided to bleed both Telecom Australia and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission this financial year to get down its rubbery deficit figures on paper. The Department has played a positive role in trying to get the interfering and uninformed minds of the Department of Treasury and the Department of Finance away from the corporate plans of the various statutory authorities. However, I have considered various projects in Estimates committee hearings, including a terrible tendering program for Australia Post's electronic counter services equipment which needs considerably more investigation than the Department has so far undertaken. There is no mention of this project in the report. The report leaves a lot to be desired. It is typified mainly by the things which are missed out. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. One of the things for which the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment has responsibility is the management of the kangaroo populations throughout Australia. There is no doubt that this issue has become overladen with an excess of emotional debate. There is no doubt that a large number of Australians view kangaroos as the national symbol of our country and respond, in quite an understandable fashion, to the claims which are made by some of the more extreme elements in the animal liberation movement and by some of the more politically motivated people in the animal welfare debate about what is alleged to be the slaughter of kangaroos throughout Australia. Senator Georges —And some others. Senator PUPLICK —I accept entirely that Senator Georges is absolutely correct. A large number of people are genuinely concerned about animal management programs. Senator Georges, equally, would concede that I am not one of those persons who have sought to approach this debate in an unscientific or, indeed, in an-- Senator Sanders —Emotional. Senator PUPLICK —Or in an overly emotional fashion. I am grateful to Senator Sanders for his assistance in this matter. I know that from time to time Senator Sanders makes a considerable effort to be rational. Nevertheless, the issue which is before us is whether the scientific management of Australia's kangaroo population commends as a proper course of action the use of culling procedures. Anybody who has travelled in the western areas of New South Wales, the State which I represent, will know that this is not simply a matter of the protection of Australia's national symbol. It is a question which has a very vital economic impact on people attempting to earn their living and to maintain their properties and the viability of their industries in that part of the State. Although there are significant arguments about the actual numbers of kangaroos in Australia-there are legitimate arguments about the measurement and numerical techniques which are used by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the relevant State departments-the evidence appears, on the face of it, to be quite overwhelming that the kangaroo populations in the species which are subject to controlled culling are not at an endangered level. It is perfectly true that there are a number of kangaroo and macropod species in Australia which are threatened, but the primary species which are subject to regulation and quotas are not. The second point which emerges is that there has been without doubt a great deal of disquiet within the community and the industry about aspects of illegality and improper behaviour by people involved in the industry. That is a matter of real significance, and I am encouraged by the fact that the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare is investigating it. We shall await the report of that Committee not only with interest but also as making a significant contribution to the national debate. The third point is that among people who are actually aware of questions of animal management, there is no doubt that the scientific control of populations and of species is an important part in the management of the long term viability of those species. I believe that the most important thing that should now be introduced into the debate about kangaroos is a greater degree of objectivity about the facts and a greater degree of objectivity about the programs which properly ought to be put in place. From my own point of view, as somebody who regards himself as a very committed conservationist, the process of the scientific management of kangaroo populations and the culling of kangaroo populations is an entirely proper and defensible course of action for governments to take, based upon good scientific data like that in the Sharman report and sound scientific management plans. I very much regret the unhelpful hysteria that has been introduced into the debate, which I hope the report of the Senate Committee will help lay to rest. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(3.22) —I speak to the annual report of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment not because I want to extend the debate which has been brought on by Senator Puplick but merely because I want to use what he had to contribute to the case I put before you, Mr Deputy President, to underline the fact that the procedures which the Senate is now following are such that they make a farce of the reports and their debate. I take, for example, the subject Senator Puplick raised and on which he spoke for five minutes. If anyone wishes to participate in this debate on the same subject, he or she also has five minutes. I think it is time that the Senate Standing Orders Committee looked at our procedures. Here we have at this late stage, in the last week of the Parliament, some 53 reports, some of which are substantial, to consider, with each senator having only five minutes in which to express an opinion. I suggest again that these procedures do not serve the Senate well. They certainly do not give sufficient weight to the considerable number of reports that have been brought down. I even express the suspicion that some of these reports are coming down late in the knowledge that they will not be properly considered. I suggest that if the procedures are to continue in this way, we may have to set up another standing committee to peruse annual reports and to report back to the Senate. I suggest that that is the role of the Senate itself. If I were in the Opposition and I was confronted with 53 reports on a single day, upon which I would have only five minutes to contribute to each, I would be taking a very firm stand against this. Not only do we have insufficient time to debate these reports, but reports from our own committees-on which a considerable amount of time, sometimes two years, has been spent in investigation-come into the Senate and are not debated beyond the tabling statements of the chairs of those committees. For instance, recently we brought down a very important report from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and only the tabling statement came before the Senate. I suggest that we ought to take on board at this moment the need to reconsider our procedures in this House to make certain that next year we are not faced with the same problem of 53 reports being presented on the third last day of sitting for the year. Senator Puplick —We hope. Senator GEORGES —We hope, but we know what will happen. We will find that we will have to truncate discussion on legislation. The Senate ought not to continue to tolerate this piecemeal approach. I think every member of the Senate should take up this matter. It is not satisfactory, when we have these reports before us, for us not to be able properly to debate some important comments that an honourable senator has made. I impress upon you, Mr Deputy President, during the debate on this important report, that we need far more time than is available to examine and debate these reports. We have cut down our procedures in a variety of ways in order to deal with important matters. We have succeeded only in not discussing anything at all, even the important matters. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.26) —I want to refer to the section in the annual report of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment relating to the activities of the Australia Council and, in particular, to the fact that when the estimates of the Australia Council and of the Department were being debated here last week during the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87, information which had been requested of that Department had not been made available. This was information that was not included in the annual report but which, in my view, should have been, and it was the subject of questions in the Senate Estimates committee hearings. It is improper and inappropriate that Appropriation Bill debates take place before responses from departments, relating to matters that should properly have been in annual reports anyway, are made available. The impropriety of the Australia Council's actions is compounded by a smart-Alick Press release that Professor Yerbury, the Chairman of the Council, has caused to be put out, a copy of which she was kind enough to `fax' to me. This Press release defends her and her organisation against the criticisms I made last week about failure to respond-in fact deliberate failure, in my view-to questions I had asked about the magazines and their funding in the Estimates Committee hearings. The important point about this is that the information was not made available in time for us to debate it. That is bad enough. The next issue that concerns me is that information relating to the circulation and the administration expenses and so on of these literary magazines which are financed by the Australian taxpayer has now been made available to me, one day after I protested in this place about the lack of information-it seems to me to be more than coincidental-and leading Professor Yerbury to put out what I described as a smart-Alick Press release, which did not address the burden of my complaints about the provision of information in proper time to be discussed. My second point of concern is that this information has now been provided to me on a confidential basis, although it is public money relating to public magazines which is in question. Perhaps some of these organisations could argue that there is some commercial reason for their not revealing their circulation, their administration expenses and so on; but the important point, surely, is that the Australian public is entitled to know what proportion of the costs of these magazines is being met by it. I am certainly not revealing any confidential information by saying that for some on this list it is as low as 12 per cent but for others up to 60 per cent of the total cost of putting out some of these literary magazines is being underwritten by the taxpayers of Australia. For many of them it is around 40 per cent. If something like 60 per cent or even around 50 per cent of a magazine's costs are being funded by the taxpayer, it should be a requirement of that funding that the magazine's inability to receive money from other areas should be publicly stated. For example, when people buy these magazines they should recognise that, as well as paying the cover price, they are also paying through their taxes a considerable amount for these magazines. I conclude by saying that it is simply not good enough for Professor Yerbury or anyone else from any organisation such as the Australia Council to pretend that they can get away with not providing proper information to the Senate and then, one day after they are held up to public examination and public criticism on the matter, come back, release the information on a totally confidential basis and then put out a smart-Alick Press release saying what a clever girl she is. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.31) —I also wish to address my remarks to that part of the annual report of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment which relates to the Australia Council. It is a fact that in recent times two reports have recommended substantial changes to the Australia Council. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure inquiry into Commonwealth assistance to the arts, known as the McLeay inquiry, made several recommendations, including that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment rather than the Australia Council determine arts support policy; that this should happen once program estimates have been shown to the Minister for approval; that the Australia Council Act be amended to give the Minister powers of direction on everything except specific grants; that small grant decision making should be decentralised within 18 months; and that some boards should be amalgamated, their numbers reduced and staff reduced in number and classification. Some people in the industry feel that the report of the inquiry is a direct attack on the Australia Council and that it is contemptuous of arts workers. The Australia Council internal review which was published in October this year proposes a reduction in the number of boards and/or the size and/or the frequency of the meetings of those boards; that the boards be chaired by Council members; that the appointment of board members be by the Council, not by the Minister, as now; and that there be significant devolution in nine months. On top of the changes foreshadowed in these two reports, the Government cut funding for the administration costs of the Australia Council by a million dollars in this year's Budget. I understand that submissions are before Cabinet now recommending substantial changes to the powers, activities and size of the Australia Council. At this stage and on this occasion I simply wish to point out that many of the 120,000 people employed in the arts industry are justifiably upset at the way in which their views have effectively been locked out of the process of change which is now occurring. It is important to recognise that the system of peer representation and peer decision making that has been involved in the Australian context is internationally recognised as a superb system and is currently under threat-largely in a sense because of the fairly small cut of $1m in the Budget, which has the potential to have a much larger implication within the industry. I trust that the Minister and the Australia Council will enter into open consultation with the practitioners in the industry so that decisions can be understood and approved by the industry as a whole and so that this initiative of the Whitlam Government will not be crippled in order to save a relatively small amount of money. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.34) —I seek leave to move a motion in respect of outstanding papers. Leave granted. Senator MESSNER —I thank the Senate. In the light of the very interesting remarks of Senator Georges, which certainly the Opposition supports, I move: That Government Papers not, tabled on 1 and 2 December and called on this day, be called on at the consideration of Government Papers, pursuant to Sessional Order, on the next day of sitting. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(3.35) —That does not solve the problem, of course. All it does is postpone the problem that we faced today until tomorrow and perhaps the next day. I suggest that the Senate ought to look at the whole of the procedures which lead to this number of annual reports being received in the last week of our sitting. What Senator Messner proposes in his motion does not solve anything at all. All it does is shift the problem until tomorrow when the debate on these reports will be just as inadequate as it has been today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.36) —I rise to support the Australian Democrats amendments to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill 1986 which were moved by Senator Sanders, not because they are written in terms of Australian Democrats' policy but because, as has been pointed out in this debate by other honourable senators and as Senator Sanders has pointed out, they have been written in the exact words of Australian Labor Party policy. This was noted with some vehemence by Senator McIntosh who suggested that this had been done simply as a political stunt, that it was hypocritical and that it was done just to make it difficult for Government senators. This is not so. In fact we are trying to help Government senators to do just what Senator McIntosh suggested they should do, by using their own policy. Senator McIntosh has reminded us that a party needs to be in government to take positive steps, in this case towards nuclear disarmament and peace. One can only agree with him. Presumably-and this has been our presumption-ALP members sitting in government would find their policy as good a starting point as any to take positive steps. Apparently that is not so. I am sure that a great many Australian voters agreed with Senator McIntosh that the ALP needed to be in government to take positive steps towards nuclear disarmament. No doubt they will be disappointed, as will the Australian Democrats, with the failure of the Government to support these amendments. At the outset I want to make it clear that our policy, as distinct from ALP policy which these amendments represent, as other honourable senators have noted, indeed calls for no uranium mining at all and no uranium sales to anyone. It is not the case that we are limiting ourselves. As I have said, we are attempting here to be of assistance. In the debate on these amendments we have seen in operation once again that grand coalition that was identified recently by the Australian Financial Review which, however, inaccurately suggested that that grand coalition does not or will not occur very often. It seems to me that it is almost par for the course. The eulogies delivered on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in this debate by Senator Sir John Carrick on the one side and Senator Gareth Evans on the other side bore an absolutely amazing resemblance each to the other. The simple facts of that Treaty clearly demonstrate its failure to achieve non-proliferation. On this planet we now have 50,000 nuclear weapons of all kinds, from the big blockbusters down to the little tactical ones that could be used in some kind of limited nuclear war. Those are the weapons which are in the hands of the official nuclear weapons states. That is horizontal proliferation, to the level of 50,000 weapons. Then there is vertical proliferation. In the hands of this Treaty we have not even been able to ensure that we are not getting to a stage at which a number of other nations have nuclear capability-nations of such instability as South Africa, Israel, India, Pakistan, China and who knows who else. This, of course, puts the whole world at enormous risk. The safeguards mentioned in the debate on this amendment and lauded on both sides, and the monitoring that we are to believe is undertaken by France of the uranium we sell to it, do not give me very much confidence or comfort. Again, we must make clear the nature of that monitoring which arises out of the nature of the product which we are selling. Sure, it is monitored-in much the same way as is the money I invest in my bank. I can put in a certain amount of dollars and I am quite happy that the bank is monitoring my dollars and that the dollars are there; the bank notifies me of that. But when I want to withdraw a dollar, I have no illusions whatsoever that the dollar I withdraw is the one that I put in. It is exactly the same situation as that of the monitoring of our uranium sold to France or to any other country. We have been accused of opportunism in this amendment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Senator McIntosh actually suggested that we were trying to appeal to our dwindling constituency. We may be trying to appeal to a dwindling constituency, but it is not ours; it is the constituency of the ALP and of the Liberal-National Party coalition which appears to be dwindling. Both sides are addressing much attention at the moment to how to get back the vote, particularly of the young people who have had enough of this. It will take more than dropping a few names of pop stars and sports idols into speeches, as the Liberal strategists have proposed, and more than sending the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) out into the wider world, even into the supermarkets, to win back the votes of the discerning voters-I am pleased to see that it is the young people who have been most discerning-who have had enough of spineless compromises on nuclear and other issues on which they have been so badly let down. I very strongly support this amendment and I categorically state that it is not our policy to be so compromising. Our policy is for a total ban on the mining and the exporting of uranium. That, of course, is our ultimate goal. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(3.42) —Before the lunch break I was on my feet talking about the amendments before the Committee and about my view of those amendments. I indicated that I was sympathetic to the intention of the Australian Democrats-to remind the Australian Labor Party of its basic policy. I had made some comments about the Rambo approach of the Opposition to matters of peace and disarmament. Senator Crichton-Browne —Rambo? Senator GEORGES —How else can it be described? Senator Crichton-Browne was in here this morning sabre-rattling and carrying on as if we were back in 1914 and in the 1930s. He goes on and on with the same old approach to a very serious problem that mankind faces. Senator Crichton-Browne —What do you think the Soviets are doing in the South Pacific? Do you think they are there to look after my interests? Senator GEORGES —I suggest that if the honourable senator supported this Bill, or if this Bill had been put in an honest fashion and we were to have a nuclear free zone in the Pacific, we would exclude all nuclear powered vessels from the ports and the seas of the area. There would be no exceptions. The Government's proposition, as I indicated this morning, is the beginning of a change to support a nuclear free zone or area, be it a municipality, a city, or even this place. It is a redirection of thinking, in the right direction, to change the processes which lead us to destruction. That is the point I was endeavouring to make. The problem with the Government's proposition is that it is inconsistent in that it proposes a worthwhile initiative, on the one hand, and denies it on the other-in that the Government has allowed the mining and the export of uranium. It has allowed the export of uranium to France at the same time as it criticises France's testing in the Pacific. It allows the porting of nuclear vessels in Australia. Yet it puts a proposition in support of a nuclear free zone. It cannot be a nuclear free zone unless the other positions are also taken. The Democrats have a point in endeavouring to re-establish the position of the Government as it ought to be. I was also saying this morning that there is a change in world affairs, a very promising change, and we should be encouraging that fact. The great leaders are beginning to meet and to talk. As they talk, person to person, there is hope for the rest of us. We ought to be concerned that there is interference in what they are doing. It is an interference and an undermining of their positions, and that is to be regretted. That undermining is an extension of the debate that takes place here. We are forgetting that there need to be substantial changes, and that those substantial changes are taking place. Events are passing us by. We are in a little backwater fighting the battles of the past in the Senate, attacking one another, not realising, of course, that it has got beyond the petty disputation that takes place in the Senate. For that reason, I would very much like to see before this Senate a proposition which would ban the export and mining of uranium. I am now in a position where I would support such a proposition. I would also like to see a Bill before the Senate which would reimpose a ban on the export of uranium to France. I would support that proposition. We are here, today, faced with a rather tortuous initiative by the Democrats which will in a way impede the little good that the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill does do. The Bill endeavours to establish the concept of a nuclear free zone, irrespective of the fact that other decisions compromise that. It does do that. That Democrats' amendment seems to impede the passage of that legislation. Senator Sanders —I shall explain it. Senator GEORGES —I am sorry. I have been scratching my head about the Democrats' proposition as it is not clearly understandable. It may be because I am dumb, but nevertheless it is not clearly understandable. Therefore, if it is not clearly understandable to people like me, it must be defective. If it is defective and is likely to impede the passage of this Bill it ought not be supported. Senator Sanders —I shall explain it to your total satisfaction. Senator GEORGES —I hope the honourable senator endeavours to do so, and the debate might get to a reasonable level-although I notice that Senator Crichton-Browne is stirring himself into further debate. I suggest that he forget about the strong attacks he has made on a variety of people, especially people in the peace movement, and that he start to be a little more understanding of what the peace movement is endeavouring to do. What the peace movement has achieved in the past five years is to make governments rethink. There was a government and a leader of a government who said that those who support the peace movement had nowhere else to go but to support the government. They found somewhere else to go. Senator Crichton-Browne —How does that influence Reagan? Senator GEORGES —President Reagan, to his credit, has changed his position remarkably over the last five years. I would suggest that it is possibly because of the strength of the peace movement in the United States and the fact that the peace movement can now influence government to support a nuclear freeze. The peace movement and those who support the peace movement have forced the leaders of the super-powers to consult and to talk as people, not as heads of government. As I said before, what worries me is the undermining of that position. We should be grateful that Reagan, in spite of the pressures imposed upon him and the limitations of his own basic position, has been prepared to talk. We also ought to be grateful for the emerging new approach of the Soviet Union. There is hope there. We ought to press for and support that hope, and look very critically at those who are endeavouring to undermine those initiatives, especially the smaller nations which, in spite of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, are testing their own devices and imprisoning those who are prepared to reveal the fact that they are engaging in that sort of research. We ought to be concerned now with the machinations, intrigues and attitudes of these smaller powers which, incidentally, remind me of the attitude of this Opposition-gung ho, let us get at it, let us fight it out, let us knock them down when we see them, and it is better to be dead and right than to live in peace. I suggest to Senator Sir John Carrick that, when we come to look at it, that is really-- Senator Sir John Carrick —You have never heard us say that. You have never heard me say that at all. Senator GEORGES —I am just testing out the honourable senator to see whether or not I misunderstood what he has been saying. What Senator Crichton-Browne has said is fairly clear, that we ought to get out there and fight it out tomorrow. Senator Crichton-Browne —No, I didn't. Senator GEORGES —He said something of the sort. That is the impression I got. Senator Crichton-Browne —No, I said I don't approve of the-- Senator GEORGES —Well, obviously, so what does he suggest we do-take up a gun and start shooting? Senator Crichton-Browne —No, have constructive deterrents. Senator GEORGES —`Deterrents' is an old fashioned term. He knows well enough that deterrence has passed. Both super-powers are determined to place themselves in a position where they can fight a nuclear war and survive, no matter what the cost. I believe that the United States' view is very clearly in that direction. I know that there are militarists on both sides and I know that militarists will have their own way. That is a danger. Produce the weapon and the systems and the militarists will want to try them out. The consequences of that are very clear, even to Senator Crichton-Browne. They are certainly clear to Senator Sir John Carrick because I know that he reflects on these matters and that he is concerned about the inevitability of universal destruction. All I am saying is: Let us forget about the arguments and disagreements and get down to some constructive way in which we can improve the cause of peace in a meaningful way. One of the meaningful ways might be to support nuclear free zones, which this particular proposition put by the Government endeavours to do. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.53) —I think perhaps one further point ought to be made in reinforcement of what Senator Georges said about the way in which this amendment comes before us. It is cast in such a fashion that anyone who votes for it is thereby necessarily condemning the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill to going into some kind of limbo zone until some unspecified future date at which further legislation is passed by the Parliament along the lines that the Australian Democrats have sought as far as uranium sales to France are concerned. This amendment squarely will have the effect of delaying the coming into force of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill and accordingly the Treaty itself until such time as the Parliament addresses the question that the Australian Democrats want us to address. That is the bottom line reason why Australian Labor Party senators will be voting unanimously on this issue. It is the case that a number of my colleagues feel quite acutely-I acknowledge the force of their concern-the existence of competing obligations under our present formally stated and approved policy. On the one hand, that policy does talk in terms of a continuing prohibition on uranium sales to France but, on the other hand, there is a very clear cut commitment to the South Pacific nuclear free zone concept, endorsed in very resounding terms by the National Conference of the ALP at the same time last June. The immediate matter before us today is the passage of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. If the amendment of the Democrats on the other matter were to be passed it would have the result of delaying, perhaps permanently, the passage into effect of that legislation. Quite apart from any other consideration-I referred earlier to a number of considerations that were moving the Cabinet-it is important that it be understood that the reason why there will be unanimous opposition to this rather tawdry little ploy of the Democrats on this occasion is that the effect of it, as I say, would be to put at risk the very Treaty which we all on this side of the chamber are very firmly committed to support. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.55) —The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has just put the rather extraordinary point that his Party cannot support an amendment to the piece of legislation before us, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill, because although it reflects his Party's policy it may in some way delay, apparently for an unconscionable length of time, the implementation, signing or passage of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. I wonder whether the Minister could explain why the Labor Government has ordered its priorities in such a way that it is giving priority to a piece of legislation which, on description from all sides of the chamber, is a particularly weak piece of legislation-as a treaty it is a nice piece of paper but it is more or less worthless, as of course most treaties are when it comes to the crunch-instead of to the legislation that is on the Notice Paper and an amendment to this piece of legislation which refers to Senator Sanders's private member's Bill that would ban the sale of uranium to France. Are the Minister and his Party honestly saying that it is more important to pass the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill than to stop the sale of uranium to France, because that is essentially what the Government's actions are doing and saying to the people of Australia who are concerned, first and foremost, about this Government's actions in selling uranium to a country which is not noted for its ethics in this particular area? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.58) —The Australian Democrats ought to be aware by now that the Government will determine its own legislative agenda and not have it set for it by anything that the Democrats might choose to present to it. The reason why priority is being given, quite apart from any other consideration-I mentioned a number of other considerations earlier on as to why the Government's policy is as it is on the sale of uranium to France issue-to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill today and why any delay in the effect of that legislation would be very unfortunate indeed can be simply stated. It would be a matter of acute foreign policy embarrassment for the Government in our relationship with our South Pacific Forum partners, a number of whom have moved already to complete ratification at the Australian Government's urging. With the prospective protocol signatory states we have invested a quite major diplomatic effort in putting the case for an early and positive response to the protocols, to the United States of America in particular, and any delay in the ratification by Australia of the Treaty would render quite nugatory that particular diplomatic effort we have put in to date. So, quite apart, as I say, from all the substantive arguments about the uranium sales to France issue, on the one hand, and the substantive arguments about the worth of this Treaty, on the other, there are some very strong reasons why it is very important indeed that this Bill be not only passed today but also passed in a form whereby it can be immediately proclaimed and the Treaty ratified. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(3.59) —I would like to take up some points that have been made in this debate. Senator Sir John Carrick is pushing his Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty barrel. Senator Powell very adequately addressed that issue. She pointed out that there are now 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world and that the NPT has failed. South Africa, Israel, India, China, Pakistan and perhaps Iraq have not been deterred by the NPT. I think the point has to be made in relation to Senator Sir John Carrick's gung ho attitude towards the complete exploitation of uranium in all of its forms that as it is used for so-called peaceful purposes more and more gets out into the world. It is well known that, given a decent machine shop, a high school student could easily produce a simple but effective atomic bomb if he could get hold of the uranium or plutonium. Senator Sir John Carrick's support of the open-slather export of uranium would make that uranium and plutonium that much more available. Certainly a lot of this material which is being used now for so-called peaceful purposes is unaccounted for. Hundreds and hundreds of kilograms of uranium are unaccounted for around the world. I was saddened by the comments of Senator McIntosh, who I am sorry to see is not in the chamber at present. I consider Senator Gordon McIntosh a friend. We were members of a parliamentary delegation which went through Poland and Russia. However, he launched a personal attack on me which I feel was a sad thing to do. I think it was an indication of the fact that he is stung by his own Party's inability to implement its policy in this matter. The honourable senator scathed us for using Australian Labor Party policy and saying that we were supporting the shipment of uranium to France because if in fact France stopped testing in the Pacific the amendment would allow us to ship uranium to France. We are merely trying to implement the legislation. As I pointed out earlier, we have a whole sheaf of Bills which would ban uranium sales anywhere, which would keep uranium in the ground. The Labor Party has consistently opposed our legislation. All right, we are realists; if it will not give us a complete ban on uranium we hope that it will at least give us its own policy, which bans the sale of uranium to France. Our legislation, my amendment and the techniques I have used have been scathed in this place as amateurish, unknowing-- Senator Georges —Unclear. Senator SANDERS —And unclear, which in fact they are not at all. I have found that Parliament is a very complicated machine. It takes a long time to learn how to drive it. I do not claim to know how to drive all of it but I do work hard at learning how to use the mechanisms. We have had a lot of difficulty. As may be abundantly clear to all in this chamber, we do not have the numbers in our own right. So in order to get anything up we have to take some perhaps fairly clever-not too clever by half, as Senator Gareth Evans has said-steps. In order to amend the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill we had to have something to hang the amendment on. We could not find anything in this Bill to hang the amendment on so in a sort of boot-strap operation we introduced yet another Bill-a small Bill which is on one piece of paper and which would not take long to pass-entitled the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Bill 1986. By adopting the simple machinery of introducing that Bill we are able to move our amendment. I do not know whether the Queen's Counsel Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has heard of this device, but I give him credit because I am sure he has used it himself in the past. He is an astute gentleman and I am sure that he is very aware of this procedure. He has used it in the past because, of course, he does know how to drive this parliamentary machine. It turned out that the Government did agree-and I give it credit for this-to debate my Bill cognately with the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. That was excellent-full marks to it. Senator Gareth Evans —On the understanding that it would be knocked off. Senator SANDERS —I did not understand that-the Government understood it. It is always knocking off our Bills. But the Opposition, for reasons best known to itself-and I cannot fathom why-decided to oppose the cognate debate. In order for us to suspend Standing Orders to get our Bill up we would have had to have an absolute majority. Because we did not have an absolute majority, I moved a motion which required only a simple majority-and we have a simple majority in this chamber often-to have my Bill dealt with immediately following consideration of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. That is the way it works. It is a quite simple and elementary common parliamentary procedure. It is easy to understand. If honourable senators do not understand it-and I am not saying this in any-- Senator Georges —How are you going to achieve that last part, though-that simple majority? Senator SANDERS —By use of a contingent notice of motion. I suggest that all honourable senators do as I do. I have found the Clerks at the table extremely helpful. If honourable senators do not understand this, I am sure the Clerks will explain it to them as they have explained it to me. I think it is a sham for Government senators to hide behind the claim that the procedure I have followed is somehow illegal, amateurish or whatever. It is not. It is a perfectly valid parliamentary procedure-there is nothing wrong with it-that would not delay the passage of the Bill through the Senate. Senator Gareth Evans —Very elegant but totally ineffective. Senator SANDERS —The Minister at least admits that it is elegant. It is only ineffective because he will not support it. He is probably jealous that he did not think of it himself. There was some mention-I cannot remember who brought it up-that we somehow intend to postpone the passage of this legislation indefinitely. That is not correct. We do not want to postpone it indefinitely. In fact, my little Bill could be passed very rapidly along with the amendment. It is true that it would then have to go back to the House of Representatives, but what is the hurry? The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty has been kicking around for months, for years, and it still has not been signed by all of the nations involved. There is no big hurry. There is only a hurry if in fact the Government wants to look like it is trying to do something to ban nuclear weapons somewhere or if it wants to look like it is actually taking steps. It is a sham. Senator Gareth Evans —No big hurry to stop testing? No big hurry to stop dumping? You have forgotten your constituency. There is no big hurry to stop testing, to stop dumping? Senator SANDERS —There is a big hurry but certainly the Government's Bill will not do that. It will not have any teeth at all until our Bill is passed because the Government's Bill allows all of these activities to take place. It tacitly approves of French testing in the Pacific by allowing the sale of raw materials to France. The Government has never said that it can guarantee absolutely that no Australian uranium has ever been used in any part of the French nuclear weapons testing program. It has never made that guarantee. It cannot do so because we have been shipping uranium to France in various forms for years. Senator Gareth Evans —It has been going to different installations and on a safeguarded basis. Don't talk nonsense. Senator SANDERS —We have already gone over safeguards. This has been an excellent debate on a real world subject. So often we debate trivia in this place. This chamber is just used for personal diatribes, urgency motions and matters of public importance, which are not important and which no one but the person on his or her feet pays any attention to. This has been a valuable debate on all sides so it has been worth having. I think it will be more valuable if it results in the passage of my amendment. I again urge all Labor Party senators to vote for their own policy. There is nothing wrong with my parliamentary tactics. There is nothing wrong with the amendment or the Bill. The only thing that is wrong is that the Labor Party will not let its members vote for their own policy. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.08) —I rise for two reasons. First of all I rise because, not unexpectedly, there has been gross misrepresentation by Senator Sanders of both what I have said and what the coalition stands for. He said that I personally was gung ho about the use and export of uranium for all purposes. That is absolute nonsense; it is a corruption of the truth and he knows it. I simply point out, and make it perfectly clear to Senator Georges, that this is not a question of saying that somebody has a monopoly over peace and all others are scurvy knaves. The concept that someone has a monopoly is a conceited falsity. Indeed, anyone who puts that view does not have the maturity to understand that most right thinking people want peace, that there may be different roads to peace and that it might be a good idea occasionally to respect the other fellow's views and walk with him occasionally along that road to peace. So I say that there is no value at all in somebody suggesting that the Opposition may be gung ho for war. I state unequivocally-I speak for all my colleagues and as one who knows something about war and its havoc-that the whole of my parliamentary Party and the coalition have one goal: To achieve and to maintain peace with dignity and a non-nuclear world, a world in which there is also conventional disarmament so that we can have peace, justice and freedom. Anybody who gets up in this place and tries by some little trick to suggest that he has purity at heart and that the others want war, I think, does us a very grave disservice. My own particular political Party and the coalition are the people who have put in place the real safeguards. I, for example, have been privileged, as Senator Gareth Evans is now privileged, to be the Minister responsible for safeguards. The fact that we may share a belief in respect of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not surprising, since we share that belief with 134 nations in the world. Senator Sanders talked about a gung ho attitude. Let me just remind him that the Australian Science and Technology Council-the most prestigious scientific body in Australia, headed by Professor Ralph Slatyer, a great conservationist, a great scientist and a great seeker for peace and dignity in this world-has said that it would be in the best interests of peace in this world if Australia exported its uranium in all its market opportunities to all those countries which are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Does Senator Sanders suggest that ASTEC and Professor Slatyer are in fact gung ho and wrong? Does he suggest that everbody is wrong except himself? This is the dissertation of the snake-oil salesman. If ever I have seen the carpetbagger or the snake-oil salesman, I see him in the way that the Australian Democrats approach this matter. The fact is that the Opposition stands for the maintenance and extension throughout the world of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, preferably to every country on earth; the maximum reinforcement of the safeguards; the observation by them of Australia; and, indeed, the strengthening of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I say: Let nobody in this place say that he has any monopoly or oligopoly on peace. Let us once and for all get out of this chamber this nonsense that somebody over there is standing for peace and some of us are gung ho for war and aggression. We are second to none in our desire for peace. Let me just put the snake-oil salesmen in their true perspective. What they are saying, and the Minister will have to agree with this, is this: France should not buy its uranium from Australia, that uranium being subject to the most intense safeguards so that it cannot get into weaponry-I notice the Minister nods-but it can go and shop anywhere around the world from another nation where there are no safeguards so that it can get into weaponry. So what they are asking here today is that we allow France to buy uranium to put into weapons. Let us make no mistake about that. The Minister has acknowledged the situation. If one wanted to stop France from getting uranium to put into weapons one would sell it uranium from Australia. Senator Sanders has said to the Minister that the safeguards are not such that we in Australia could say that no uranium has ever got into weapons. What we can say emphatically is that the safeguards are such that we monitor the whole of the uranium, from its mining and milling through its yellowcake stage and its enrichment, right through the whole process-- Senator Sanders —Right through Russia? Do you say that it is monitored in Russia? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —This is a lovely situation. I take it that Senator Sanders is going to raise that famous red herring that some of the uranium goes to Russia for enrichment. Is that the kind of red herring we are going to have again-that it goes from Finland to Russia for enrichment? Let us have this nonsense out once and for all. If there is one thing that Russia would not want to do it is to steal some uranium or plutonium from somebody else. Russia has so much plutonium that it does not know what to do with it. In fact, as I said earlier today, it is thinking of setting up an international plutonium bank to retire the plutonium. In fact, anybody would know that, as nuclear missiles are sophisticated and refined, the warheads use less and less plutonium and there is more and more surplus plutonium. The nonsense that Russia would take some uranium or plutonium for itself for weaponry serves only to corrupt the message that is going to the people of Australia. Russia has its own sources of uranium and thorium; it does not need them from anybody else at all. Let us make it perfectly clear first of all that that red herring ought never be allowed to appear again in this place. It not only disgraces the Democrats but it says to the people of Australia: `We are projecting to you an untruth; we are projecting to you a fear that does not exist.' The fact is that the Australian Safeguards Office monitors and audits the uranium through the whole of its cycle. ASTEC-the gung ho people according to Senator Sanders, because nobody is right except himself, and that of course is the marketability of the snake-oil salesman; where else in the world can one produce snake-oil with such characteristics-says not only that should Australia sell to all those signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that want uranium for peaceful purposes, something which it advocates so that every ounce of it can be monitored but also that we should enrich uranium and go through the nuclear cycle, because the more that a responsible country such as Australia does these things, the less is the risk for the world. It does nobody any credit at all to indulge in scare tactics. The nuclear threat is an overwhelming scare on its own. What we need to do is to understand what I said earlier: The world now has the knowledge to make nuclear weapons and we cannot take that away. Every country in the world has fissile material, in the sea and on the earth. One does not need to sell the material to anyone who wants to make a bomb. Such people can get it without that. But if we do not sell it, market it and control it around the world, we let the snake-oil salesmen sell it, for their own purposes-the carpetbaggers of this world. We, in fact, would be encouraging France to buy uranium that is not monitored at all. That is the message that is coming from the Democrats today. I repeat: That is the message that is coming from a party whose platform is to abandon ANZUS, abandon the installations so that we have no monitoring for the checking, verification and surveillance of what is going on, to abandon the Western alliance, to abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to leave Australia isolated. Every argument that the Democrats put up is fallacious. I come to an argument that has been going on here today. In passing, I say to Senator Georges, because I respect so much of his philosophy in these matters: Please understand that others may share the same goal of peace and that they want to achieve this goal; please respect the genuineness of their approach and their policies, and let us walk together on that. So much now of what the right wing of the Australian Labor Party and the coalition think in terms of peace and security is in parallel. The arguments of both sides-certainly in respect of the right wing of the Labor Party-are in parallel. Let us not poke tongues out at each other. If there is to be a message for the International Year of Peace, let it be this: All right thinking people want peace; let there be a respectable dialogue as to the methods of getting that peace. In the course of this discussion people have said: `We know Labor's policy; Labor's policy is opposed to the exporting of uranium to France'. Government senators interjecting- Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Well, I think I heard that; I think I heard the Minister say it. If I did not, I would like to be corrected. I listened to the Budget and I heard Labor's policy stated in the Budget. I ask the Minister to correct me if I am wrong, but Labor's policy in the Budget was that it proposes to export uranium to France-not this Budget, not next Budget and a half, but that that is Labor's future policy. I ask the Minister whether I am wrong in that. Is this just a oncer to balance this Budget, or is Labor's policy now to export to France? How can the Labor Party say that its policy is not to export uranium to France when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that its previous policy to ban it was just a shop window, that it had no legs to run and was just an empty gesture? Is it Labor's policy to ban it and is it an empty gesture? One cannot have it both ways. The Prime Minister is very facile on both sides of the argument and has some skills on this. He has schizophrenic policies in this regard and has said quite clearly that the policy Labor embarked upon was a policy of gesture, of shop window. He said that it could not be enforceable, that it meant nothing to France, it did not punish France. Far more importantly, let it be said, and I repeat it, that what that meant, and what the Democrats are now proposing, is to say to France: `No, you cannot buy our uranium, which will be monitored and you can't put it into weapons, but you can shop all over the world and get it on the cheap, where there is no such monitoring and you can put it into weapons'. What kind of disarmament policy is that? What kind of hypocritical policy is it? I ask the Minister whether he will help me: Is it the policy of the Labor Party to prohibit the export of uranium to France? Should France understand that at some time in the near or distant future this will stop? Are we to say to those who want uranium from Australia: `No, you cannot have it from us, even though we have the strongest safeguards on earth and we can ensure that you use it only for peaceful purposes, but you are at liberty to shop anywhere you like, get it as secretly as you like, and get it without safeguards'? I cannot think of a more disastrous policy, and that is what the Democrats' amendment would lead to. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(4.23) —I am surprised at the aggressive way in which Senator Sir John Carrick supports the cause of peace. There is a contradiction there. The Liberal Party's problem is that it has reached the position of peace through strength. Immediately one takes that position, we are all endangered. The practical end of that approach to peace is that we will continue to arm ourselves in order to match the armament of our opponents. I am not misrepresenting the position. That is the basis of our disagreement. The Opposition has no trust or faith or hope and suggests that the world should continue to arm and that we should continue to be a part of the arms race. Senator Sir John Carrick —On the contrary; our policy is total disarmament. Senator GEORGES —I know the honourable senator's views and I know the policy of his Party, and I know what he has said here today-peace, but peace through strength. In the circumstances in which we are placed that policy is disastrous. Fortunately, there is a breakthrough. There are some who are beginning to believe that they can take a unilateral position in order to establish some reversal of the present acceleration in the arms race. Senator Sir John Carrick —That is not Labor Party policy. Senator GEORGES —Could we put Labor Party policy to one side? I find that difficult to deal with, just as I find it difficult to deal with Senator Sir John Carrick. All the statements the honourable senator has made concerning uranium and the use of uranium lead to the conclusion that we should ban the mining and exploitation of uranium. Everything he has suggested seems to indicate that we are dealing with an extremely dangerous element. The best way to deal with it is to make certain that it is not used at all. Senator Sir John Carrick —That is not Labor policy. Senator GEORGES —I have asked the Opposition to leave Labor Party policy on one side and to look at human policy as it ought to be. The honourable senator in his argument even mentioned banks, reserves of plutonium which we are to collect and put to one side and take out of the cycle. I suggest that we should not even commence the cycle, and then we would have no problems with any part of this debate. Senator Sir John Carrick —Three hundred nuclear reactors. Senator GEORGES —Well, let us put them down. They are starting to run down now. Senator Walters —You are nice and warm. Senator GEORGES —What is Senator Walters suggesting? Senator Walters —I am saying that people need it for energy. Senator GEORGES —I think we are being diverted somewhat. I remember Senator Sir John Carrick making a remark in support of the use of uranium for peaceful purposes for generation of electricity by saying: `Otherwise people will freeze in the dark'. Senator Sir John Carrick —No, I did not. Senator GEORGES —The honourable senator said that people would freeze in the dark, and he used another term, if I recall, that was unparliamentary; but it was quite incorrect. The risks of entering into the use and cycling of uranium lead to the whole world being placed at risk. The problem is that although an understanding might be reached by the super-powers, the major powers, recognising now as they do the possibility of human destruction, the problem is that other powers are beginning to exploit and to develop their own weapons. The only way to stop that is to stop the flow of uranium, to stop mining, to exclude it from human activity, as we have excluded other dangerous products from human activity. Poison gas is a classic example. Senator Townley —They are using it in Iran. Senator GEORGES —Yes, perhaps, but that is not a justification for its use. Let us take it that that is one product we ban. Senator Townley —What about acid rain? Senator GEORGES —Acid rain can be dealt with in a generation, but the consequences of the use of uranium may take centuries to recover from, if ever. Do not let us start idle comparisons. All I am suggesting is that the disagreement is that Liberal policy as to the achievement of peace places us at continued risk. The possibility of our walking together to achieve peace can be achieved only if Senator Sir John Carrick changes his views. He might suggest that I should change my views, but I am in the pure position of saying `Not on-no violence, no armaments, no conflict'. That is my position. Senator Sir John Carrick —No, that is the Democrats' position. Senator GEORGES —No, it is my position. The Democrats have nothing to do with the position I take on these matters. It seems to me that Senator Sir John Carrick is not prepared to accept the real concept of peace; that is my argument with him. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.29) —One cannot help but be drawn to the conclusion that these amendments by the Australian Democrats, which call for the cessation of the export of uranium to France so long as it continues to test in the South Pacific zone, are nothing more than an empty gesture-in fact, a token gesture which will have absolutely no effect. It seems to me that it is typical of the pathetic, pious amendments that more and more we are finding the Democrats seeking to move in a desperate attempt to hang on to what small constituency they still have within the community. One would have thought that if they were genuine, serious and real in their wishes, hopes and ambitions for the cessation of sales of uranium from Australia they would have widened their amendment. Why do the amendments, as they stand at the moment, refer only to the export of uranium to France? Clearly the Democrats' intention is to seek to embarrass and highlight the dichotomy and difficulties for those on the Left of the Australian Labor Party. From my observations I would say that so far they have failed badly. One is moved to feel that they are rather irresponsible rascals. They love to spend but they hate to cut. One might be moved to observe that perhaps the Democrats are the biggest spending, lowest taxing party in the Parliament because they do not have the responsibility that others have. They do not have the need to balance judgments, considerations and competing interests. In rebuttal, in part, of the argument that has been put to us by the Democrats, I refer to the report entitled `Disarmament and Arms Control in the Nuclear Age' put down by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, perhaps the most definitive report put down in many years on this and a whole range of matters relating to the nuclear cycle. In doing so, I recall that the one party which did not appear before the Committee to give evidence was the Australian Democrats. We heard not a word from them. We wrote to the then Leader of the Democrats, Senator Chipp, and asked him whether he would appear to give evidence and justify his arguments. Would he support his arguments? Would he in any way make a contribution to this report by way of evidence? But his response was deafening in its silence. We hear them here in the Senate, but not before a committee where they would be required to give evidence and be cross-examined. Senator Sir John Carrick —And where the facts would come out. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Where the facts would come out and their superficial arguments would be pricked like a balloon and collapse around their ears. At least at that stage the People for Nuclear Disarmament gave us evidence. I make no judgments about that; people who are concerned to make judgments can read the evidence and draw their own conclusions. At least they gave us evidence, inadequate as it might have been. I notice that the Democrats are at least present today and I ask honourable senators, as I asked earlier: Where is Senator Vallentine? Why has she abrogated her responsibilities and abandoned her constituents from Western Australia who in good faith voted for her-those 53,000 who gave her their primary votes? Where is their representative today? She led them to believe that she would represent them in this Parliament, in this chamber, with her voice and more particularly with her vote. Where is she? We now have the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill 1986 before us, the one piece of legislation that is her reason for being here. It is the reason for the very existence of her Party. It is her piece de resistance. This piece of legislation is what she is all about. Where is she? She is on a private trip to New Zealand and she has 53,000 voters in Western Australia hanging on every single word that she is not saying. Senator Gareth Evans —That's more than you've got, mate. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The vast majority of her second preferences went to Noel Ashley Crichton-Browne, so obviously some of the Western Australian voters are schizophrenic. I find it absolutely disgraceful that Senator Vallentine took their faith, confidence and goodwill, used it to get into this chamber, and has now flitted off to New Zealand at a time when she should be standing up and articulating the aspirations and wishes of those people whom she purports to represent. No wonder they feel disillusioned and deserted. Senator Georges —They will still vote for her. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —They will not vote for her next time in enough numbers to have her returned in either a double dissolution or a half Senate election. I promise you that. Last time we were too busy getting rid of the Democrats in Western Australia; next time we will settle on her. Senator Georges —Is that a threat? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is not a threat; it is a promise. Senator Georges —She got elected; you got appointed. There is a vast difference. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I did not get appointed. I was elected. Senator Georges —You were appointed to a place from where you could not be defeated. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Of course I could. She was No. 1 on her ticket and I was No. 1 on mine. What is the difference? The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne and Senator Georges, please cease your dialogue. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I refer the Committee to page 545 of this profound report. It says: The arguments in favour of Australia continuing to mine and export uranium were generally supported by the report of the ASTEC inquiry, which concluded inter alia that: (a) Australia is best able to make a significant contribution to the cause of non-proliferation if it is actively involved in the nuclear fuel cycle. Australia is needed in the non-proliferation debate to a greater extent than one would normally expect. This is due in part to the considerable reserves of uranium within Australia and Australia's record as a reliable supplier under strict controls and in part because Australia has continually sought to provide practical solutions to problems facing the non-proliferation regime. This report is attested to and signed by the Government and the Opposition-both. The report goes on to say-with the support of the Government and coalition members and senators: There will continue to be market opportunities for Australian uranium, and withdrawal of Australian supply would make little difference to the continued nuclear energy industry. The report continues: The Committee accepts that there is no shortage of uranium in the world to supply fuel to the civil nuclear industry and that the industry can proceed whether or not Australia is a supplier. It therefore supports the view that cutting off the supplies of uranium will not have any effect in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world. That is a direct reflection of the views that have been put by Senator Sir John Carrick so far. He is quite right and so is this report. The report continues: The principal impact of withdrawal of Australian uranium- and I hope that the Democrats are listening to this- will be felt by Australia; through the loss of potential and existing export earnings and through our diminished influence in the International Atomic Energy Agency and other related bodies. I recall that we are one of the founding board members of that agency. That is where we have our influence. The report goes on: The Committee supports the conclusion of the ASTEC report that, on balance, the non-proliferation regime is better served by Australia remaining a supplier of uranium ore. Australian uranium is supplied under very stringent safeguards. As noted by the ASTEC report, there is reasonable evidence that the imposition of these safeguards has not deterred prospective purchases of Australian uranium. Indeed, their acceptance may encourage other suppliers to insist on comparable conditions. The very fact that we have those safeguards means that we are able to sell our uranium. In no way are people inhibited in their purchases as a result of those conditions. In fact, the opposite is true. Perhaps other suppliers will be encouraged to provide the same safeguards. I will read the last paragraph of the Committee's report on this aspect and I recommend it as bed time reading for Senator Georges. It says: Australia's role as an exporter has enabled us to play an important role in establishing and developing the present nuclear non-proliferation regime. The Committee accepts the view of both ASTEC and the Government that withdrawal from the nuclear fuel cycle would reduce our influence in the IAEA, which plays a key role in the non-proliferation regime. Senator Georges —What does the minority report say? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —There is a minority report at the back which Senator Georges is welcome to read. I am seeking to put the view of the majority of people, embracing both the Government and the Opposition. Senator Georges —How about waving the minority report around now? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If you look deep in the report you will find it there, Senator Georges. I am seeking to reflect the views of the majority of members of Parliament, either senators or members. That view clearly is that Australia and the industry generally are advantaged by the mining and export of uranium, whether it be to France or any other country. There is an abundance of uranium ore available and, whether it is supplied by Australia or anywhere else, it will in no way inhibit France's capacity to receive the ore, process it and ultimately use it for whatever purposes it so desires. As long as Australia uses its safeguards to that extent France is inhibited. I put it to the Committee that this amendment does nothing for this legislation. The legislation in itself is inadequate, incompetent and does not do what it pretends to do. The very title of the legislation is misleading because the South Pacific is not a nuclear free zone; it is not even a nuclear weapons free zone. In fact, it is simply a zone that in some part puts some inhibition on the United States and nothing else. The essence of the Bill is that it prevents home porting for American forces. I see no merit in the amendment and I have no doubt that it will be defeated. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.40) —I have listened to the debate so far with interest. It seems to me that we are moving away from the issue, which is the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. People have got up to declare that they are interested in peace. I accept that everyone who has said that is sincere. The process by which people believe peace can be achieved varies. Senator Sir John Carrick's record proves his sincerity in proclaiming an appetite for peace. The Australian Democrats have demonstrated again and again in this chamber that they are sincere in desiring peace. Along with everybody else, I sincerely desire peace. People have criticised the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill and said that it has shortcomings. No doubt it has, but at least it is some attempt to proceed down a path that would enable peace to come to this world. It may be insufficient; it may be capable of improvement and what have you, but at least it is a concrete contribution towards a better world. That is the Bill we are debating. People want to extend into this debate their own particular recipe for peace. The banning of uranium sales to France may be a way of doing that. This should be debated at some time in the future. Senator Georges —This afternoon. Senator COONEY —I am a great respecter of Senator Georges but at least if we get this Bill through today it will be some attempt to move along the path to peace, whereas if the amendments are carried the Bill will be put off into the future. If that happens the Bill may well suffer the fate of many other Bills. For example, the Cheques Bill has been 2 1/2 years in being passed. We can certainly sit around here making all sorts of debating points, but if we want to give the people of Australia something in this International Year of Peace we will pass this Bill before Christmas. I greatly respect Senator Sanders. He has raised some debating points, as he is entitled to. But say I said that we would pass this Bill as long as a provision to abolish sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act were included-an abolition I am very much devoted to. He would say that this was irrelevant and off the point. Perhaps he would say that, although the abolition of those sections was a crucial issue, it was not appropriate to be debated in the present context. Senator Sanders —How about a meaningful treaty next year? Senator COONEY —Senator Sanders has a good point. It is in the Australian Labor Party policy, as stated at the last conference, that there will be no sale of uranium to France unless and until it stops experimenting with nuclear weapons in the Pacific. There is no doubt about that being in the policy, but it is also in the policy that there shall be a South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty. That is what this Bill delivers. Senator Haines —Even if it doesn't do anything. Senator COONEY —Senator Haines wants absolute perfection. I believe that we will get peace in the world but only by taking a step at a time. There will not be a dramatic flash of light and suddenly peace thereafter. At least this legislation is a measure by which we on this side of the chamber can say that we have made an attempt to get a peaceful world. People may say that we should have done more. Of course we should have done more but at least we have done something practical, whereas every other suggestion made here today does not lead to that. The passing of this Bill as presented at least will do something towards peace. It is in conformity with the Labor Party policy. The Democrats want to attach other things to it. They are entitled to attempt that. In my view their amendments are not relevant to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. Uranium sales to France can be discussed later. I advise honourable senators to get back to what is before the Committee and to pass the Bill. The other issue can be debated later, when the Labor Party policy can be pointed to and all the aspects of that issue can be raised. I do not say this in any condemnatory fashion because I understand what the Democrats are trying to do subjectively, but objectively the approach they are taking is delaying a Bill which makes some contribution-it might be only small compared with what is ideal-towards peace not only in the South Pacific but throughout the world generally. Some concrete contributions to peace are better than an ideal still-born. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.46) —I have found the debate very interesting. At last we have really got it on record that the Australian Democrats are far more left than the Left of the Australian Labor Party. Senator Crichton-Browne —Ask John Siddons. Senator WALTERS —Yes. Senator Sanders has been telling us that we should get rid of the ANZUS alliance and all the American bases from Australia, that we should not allow any American warships in our ports, that the South Pacific nuclear free zone is a good idea, that we should abandon the Western alliances, and anything else that came into his head. The Democrats have really gone the whole circle. They are far more left than even Senator Georges. Senator Georges —Who, me? Senator WALTERS —Yes, the Democrats are far more left than Senator Georges. There is one very big difference between Senator Georges and the Australian Democrats. Senator Georges —What is that? Senator WALTERS —I believe that Senator Georges is very sincere. I believe that Senator Georges wants peace as much as I do, and he should give me the courtesy of acknowledging that peace as much as he does. We may want to go about it a different way but we both want peace more than anything else in the world. Senator Georges has given us a dissertation today on what the peace movement is doing. He says that the peace movement is out to change attitudes in the world. Senator Georges —Well, it has succeeded. Senator WALTERS —Senator Georges says the peace movement has succeeded in changing attitudes. He makes it sound as though the peace movement is something new, yet he sat here last night and listened to me give a history of what happened after World War I. He sat there and either closed his mind to what I said or ignored it. I pointed out very clearly that the peace movement was then very much alive and well. World War I was so horrific, with 40 million to 50 million people killed, that the world decided that never again would there be such a war. It was the war to end all wars. The Washington Treaty was set up. Australia sank its only battleship because it belonged to the Commonwealth of Nations and Britain had agreed in that Treaty to get rid of the most powerful weapons known to mankind at that stage. I went on to explain to Senator Georges-and I knew he was listening-that history proves that because Britain disarmed and was very weak over all those years there was no way she could negotiate with Hitler. Senator Georges is of much the same age group as I am. We saw Hitler move across Europe with no one to stop him because the Western world had disarmed according to the treaties. I pointed out to Senator Georges that there were not just national treaties but that people were in the peace movement. I pointed out to him that the Archbishop of Canterbury sought a peace prayer, to go and pray in Germany. Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I know there is a long bow that keeps getting stretched on these occasions, but Senator Walters's contribution seems to be reminiscent of her contribution to the second reading debate and not directed towards the amendments. Do you think you could draw her back? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The amendments before the Chair are the three amendments moved by Senator Sanders which deal with the prohibition of the exportation of uranium to France. Senator Walters has been responding to some remarks made by Senator Georges but she should now come back to the issue before the Chair, which is the prohibition of the export of uranium to France. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr Chairman. Senator Gareth Evans would know that Senator Georges went very broad of the subject in debating this Bill. Senator Georges —What did I do? Senator WALTERS —I am not complaining. I am answering the points that Senator Georges made in that same debate. I pointed out to him that, when the crunch came because of the peace movement of the day and the countries themselves had disarmed, there was no way that Britain could withstand the onslaught of Germany. It was not until the Japanese went into Pearl Harbour and the United States of America joined our side that we started to wind back the aggression. We cannot have a peace movement that says: `We will have a nuclear free zone in the Pacific'. Senator Cooney said that that is a step in the right direction. It is not a step in the right direction to have a nuclear free zone in the Pacific. It does not mean that we will be excluded should there be a nuclear war. We know that everyone, worldwide, will be included in a nuclear war. The setting up of a notice stating `Nuclear free zone here' will not mean that the nuclear winter will not arrive. We know that we have to say to any aggressor: `There is no point in your trying to negotiate with us. We are strong enough to combat it'. We have had 40 years of peace. The most important thing is that we should have complete nuclear disarmament-not unilateral disarmament but bilateral disarmament. Both sides have to disarm together. I am sure that honourable senators opposite would agree-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Walters, I said a few minutes ago that the subject before the Chair was the question of Senator Sanders's amendments to ban exports of uranium to France. I have allowed you to develop your general argument. You should now make your remarks relevant to the export of uranium to France. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr Chairman. As you have said, this debate has ranged very widely but, as Senator Sanders has said, it has been valuable. I believe that honourable senators on both sides of the chamber have put their cases very well. As Senator Sir John Carrick said just a few minutes ago, refusing to export uranium to France will not mean that she will not have uranium. She will get it from other countries that do not have the safeguards that Australia has. As such, the Opposition will not be supporting these amendments. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Before I call the next speaker I again draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the subject before the Chair is the three amendments moved by Senator Sanders dealing with prohibition of the exportation of uranium to France. After that matter has been disposed of, general remarks about the Treaty will be relevant. At the moment, the subject before the Chair is the three amendments moved by Senator Sanders. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.54) —I rise to support what Senator Sir John Carrick has said with respect to the Opposition's attitude to disarmament and to refer to the terms of the amendments that have been very cunningly couched by the Australian Democrats in order to trap a few people in the Australian Labor Party who may, in their heart of hearts, agree with the text of the amendments. We in the Liberal and National parties believe that it would be impossible to prevent France from proceeding with an expanding nuclear program by preventing it from obtaining uranium from Australia. Senator Sir John Carrick pointed out very clearly that there are very stringent safeguards with respect to the use of Australian uranium by France and other countries to which we may choose to export that product in future. As the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) quite properly said earlier, the audit that has been carried out will definitely safeguard the use of our uranium for peaceful purposes. Senator Georges's answer to the whole problem is that we should ban uranium mining altogether. That again is not the answer to the problem at all. Senator Sir John Carrick said earlier that we would support the cessation of nuclear testing not only in France but also with respect to the four other countries that have a nuclear capacity-Red China, Russia, Britain and the United States of America. We believe that they should all get together and reduce the testing of these weapons. However, Australia's failure to provide uranium to France will not help because, as Senator Sir John Carrick quite properly said, it would then be able to obtain uranium from other countries that are not signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. France could obtain uranium which would be able to be used in any way that the French determined. I believe that when the Australian Government ceased delivery of uranium to France some time ago as a demonstration against the tests at Mururoa Atoll it was a demonstration of concern but it was also a breach of a contract between France and Australia with respect to the provision of uranium for peaceful purposes. It was also in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If France had cared to take this matter before the international court I believe-- Senator Townley —It would have won. Senator JESSOP —Undoubtedly, as Senator Townley has said, Australia would have lost that case because it was clearly in breach of the contract. I think the renewal of the provision of uranium to France that has been effected by the Government is quite correct. Another point that was made was in respect of the use of Australian uranium at Tricastin in France. Senator Townley and I visited that establishment when we were examining the nuclear fuel cycle industry a couple of years ago. During that time we also visited Germany and the United Kingdom. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency who are well versed in the question of safeguards and engineers and scientists are at the plant in Tricastin continually, so we know that our uranium is subject to very close scrutiny at that plant. It is interesting to observe that Tricastin enriches uranium for no fewer than 100 nuclear power stations not only in France but throughout Europe. Senator Townley —But it doesn't do it to weapons grade, does it? Senator JESSOP —No. This seems to be the emotive concern of the less informed members of the Senate, particularly the Australian Democrats, because they do not seem to realise that the isotopes from plutonium that result from nuclear power generation, the domestic use of uranium, are not the isotopes that are capable of use for nuclear weapons. Those isotopes are impure and would require expensive refinement to produce-- Senator Sanders —What about the Phenix? Senator JESSOP —The ex-United States expert says `What about the Phenix?'. I remind the honourable senator of what Senator Sir John Carrick said. He said that atomic weapons can be triggered off by plutonium that can be derived from sea water. I think that the Democrat argument is fallacious and nonsense. Senator Sanders —More expensive than sea water. Senator JESSOP —It is quite true. The honourable senator does not know what he is talking about. Senator Sanders —How expensive will that be as compared with enriching reactor grade plutonium? Senator JESSOP —It would be less costly. The other problem that was brought to bear on Senator Townley and me when we were in France was the pollution of the environment by hydrocarbon power generation. At that time the French were anxious to continue the program of nuclear power generation in order to offset the disastrous effects of acid rain. I note that in America, for example, 28 million tonnes a year of carbon dioxide is belched into the environment from conventional power stations. Nuclear power stations are with us. I believe that what we are doing is correct and I totally reject the amendment moved by the Australian Democrats. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.01) —The amendments moved by Senator Sanders are pertinent to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill, which establishes a South Pacific nuclear free zone. They seek to free a particular zone in the world from the use of nuclear weapons, the possession of nuclear weapons and the transportation of nuclear weapons. I must admit that I have serious reservations about the Bill in its entirety. Modifying this Bill with Senator Sanders's amendments would seem to me to bring some integrity to the exercise. A large number of nations in the South Pacific have expressed concern at the activity of France in this region. The reason the amendments specify France is that we are talking about the South Pacific region. We are talking about a power which possesses nuclear weapons and which still engages in testing those nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. This is the specific reason for singling out France. France is the relevant party in this Bill. By its exercises in this region it has shown that it does not care for the sensibilities and aspirations of the people of the South Pacific. Not too long ago a conference was held in Parliament House, sponsored by a committee of parliamentarians. There were representatives from the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and France. It was made very clear that these countries between them possess the major stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world today-at least that is what we hope. From an answer to a question I put to the leader of the French delegation, it was fairly obvious that France's response is to pay no attention to the feelings, understandings and desires of the countries of the South Pacific region. That is why this amendment is couched in this way; that is why it is directed at France. It can be said to be a gesture but, in international terms, gestures are often very important. We are not necessarily talking about stopping the production of nuclear weapons in France; we are quite specifically talking about the attitude Australia has to France and to the French activities in this region. I remind honourable senators that Australia took France to the International Court of Justice over this very matter. It is a matter which still concerns the vast majority of people in Australia, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, New Zealand, Fiji and all the other South Pacific countries. The amendment has been moved specifically to look at that. Australia, as one of the main proponents and instigators of the Treaty, needs to take a very firm attitude on French activities in this region. Neither the Bill nor the amendment has been debated widely in the community, but as a number of people have pointed out it has been discussed in the Senate on innumerable occasions, including during debate on other Bills. It is a highly specific Bill and this is a highly specific amendment to it. It is interesting that when these issues are debated unfortunately the debate generally tends to be one of personal invective. It is a pity that that should be so. I understand the feelings that people have on this matter. I have a very passionate concern about the problems of peace in the world. For this reason I support very strongly the creation of nuclear free zones, such as the South Pacific nuclear free zone. Ultimately our hope is that with the creation and linking up of enough of these zones around the world we will have a nuclear free world. We all know that we cannot achieve everything we wish to achieve in one stroke, but that does not mean that we ought not to do what can now be done. Even though it may be a small and seemingly insignificant step, the hope is that over time these steps will build. To restore integrity to this legislation, which lacks a decisive move towards the creation of a nuclear free zone, we believe that at the very least the Government should prevent the export of Australian uranium to France. This would be a gesture and a direct call to other countries in our region that we are willing to sacrifice economic gain for a particular end; that is, the solid and sure establishment of a nuclear free zone and the hope that other such zones around the world will be created by like-minded countries. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.08) —The Committee has been debating for some time amendments moved by Senator Sanders on behalf of the Australian Democrats to insert into the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill a provision which would prohibit the supply of Australian uranium to France until France ceases testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. Senator Sanders sought permission from the Senate earlier in the day to have this particular Bill debated cognately with the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Bill, which he introduced, which is to the same effect. It is true that the Opposition did not support that Bill being brought up for debate today. The reason I gave this morning is twofold. First, this is a Government measure. In fact, the two Bills we are debating at the moment are Government measures. At this stage of the session it is the usual practice for Government Business to take precedence over all private business. The Opposition has a lot of private business that it would like to debate at present. We see no reason why that idea should be breached to serve the purposes of Senator Sanders and the Australian Democrats on one of their hobby horses. That is why we did not support having that legislation debated. However, Senator Sanders is endeavouring to circumvent that by moving an amendment to the Treaty Bill to achieve the same purpose. The Opposition has already voted against the second reading of the Bill. I do not want to go over this matter again, but as I have already said the Opposition is certainly not of the view that even if we are to have a treaty-we lost that vote as it was supported by the Democrats-the Democrats amendment will not improve it. As far as we are concerned, the Treaty would only be worse if the Democrat amendment were passed. Accordingly, we will oppose the amendment. The Opposition's view has always been that Australian uranium should be mined and exported without the sorts of absurd restrictions that are placed upon it by the Government. The only restriction that we believe should be placed on the export of uranium is that it should be sold only to countries with which we have a special bilateral safeguards agreement to import uranium. Certainly, that should all happen in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, with the rules laid down under the Treaty and under the International Atomic Energy Agency. Australia's safeguards agreements with countries importing our uranium are even more strict than the rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is not that the Opposition believes that there should be open slather on the export of uranium. When in government, we pioneered the strict safeguards policy. Within that strict safeguards policy we do not believe that France should be singled out and that there should be a ban on the export of uranium to France. It is another absurd restriction that was imposed by this Government when it came to power because it was giving in at that stage to its left wing over protest about French nuclear tests in the Pacific. The Opposition is strongly opposed and has been for many years in government as well as in opposition to the testing of weapons by France in the South Pacific. However, as Senator Sir John Carrick has already made perfectly clear in this debate, the testing of weapons in the South Pacific is not just a single problem. Nuclear weapons testing in any part of the world is a major problem and should be addressed on that basis and not by singling out France in the South Pacific. That is not directly relevant to the point I wish to make. The Opposition has always believed that to try to use trade sanctions with France over this matter is totally misconceived. All that was achieved by the Government's ban on uranium sales to France was to relieve France from its obligations under a contract which was very beneficial to Queensland Mines Ltd and Australia as far as the price was concerned and enable the French electricity authority to buy that uranium at the much lower prices which now prevail. We do not know exactly what that contract price is because that has been kept in commercial confidentiality by the Government. The Opposition is not complaining about that although it is a bit unrealistic, particularly when one sees some documents that have been made available to my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Brown. Under the Freedom of Information Act he applied to the Department of Trade a few weeks ago and sought from the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, all correspondence and other documents requesting appointments with the French authorities and Queensland Mines to discuss the proposal to remove the ban on exporting uranium to France. He requested notes of those discussions and all documents which showed when it was discovered that the ban on exports of uranium to France was not working. He requested information on the precise terms of any agreement reached and the estimates of likely savings as a result of lifting the ban. Under this regime which believes so passionately in freedom of information Mr Brown got pretty short shrift under that application under the Act. He was told that the Department had identified 14 documents on the subject but only bits of two of them were to be made available to him because the release of the rest of them would be in breach of all sorts of exemptions under the FOI Act. That would be a nice subject for debate on another occasion. But again, I will not pursue it, even though Senator Gareth Evans tempts me to do so because he ought to learn about how his Government of which he is a senior member is dealing with freedom of information matters. I will leave that matter for another day. A couple of pages, an interesting little document, has been made available to Mr Brown. It is headed `Fact Sheets: QML'. We know that the Australian Public Service is incapable of referring to anything by name. It only uses acronyms so for the benefit of honourable senators and people listening QML means Queensland Mines Ltd which is the uranium company which was and is again supplying uranium to France. Just to show how absurd is this exemption on confidentiality there are references to how many short tonnes of uranium have been supplied-or not supplied-to France. This document states that the Government has had to pay compensation and how much compensation it has paid. It gives the figures; so with an elementary knowledge of arithmetic it is easy to work out what the price was. It is around $30 a pound. Senator Jessop —How much did it cost to compensate? Senator DURACK —It cost about $100m to compensate the company. The most interesting things in these documents are the views that have been expressed about the likely demand by France for Australian uranium. It is perfectly clear from the Department of Trade notes that there are very considerable prospects for Australia to sell uranium to France in the 1990s. I will read from the document that has been submitted to Mr Brown under the heading `Longer term market prospects in France'. It states: The Department of Trade judges that good prospects for the sale of significant tonnages of Australian uranium to France still exists in the 1990s. It is a pity that Senator Walsh is not here to hear this because he has been telling us that there are no prospects for more Australian uranium to be sold from existing mines. He obviously does not know any more about uranium marketing than he knows about the Income Tax Act. The paper goes on: EdF- Electricite de France, the French utility- currently operates 44 nuclear power stations generating about 70 per cent of France's electricity. A further 18 stations are being built. After 1990 French annual demand for uranium will exceed 14,000 tonnes per annum. EdF's long term purchasing policy does not exclude Australia- despite the way we have been going on- if supplies will be available, but contracts are already in place for the 1990s covering more than half of requirements. However there are indications that, subject to the early removal of supply barriers, opportunities exist for progressively increasing Australian tonnages up to perhaps 25 per cent of French requirements. Such a level of exports would return around . . . per annum in export revenue at the current floor price of . . . That is what we get. Senator Sir John Carrick —Blank. Senator DURACK —The figures are blotted out, although another page indicates the price under existing contracts. In the 1990s it may or may not be the same as it is now. At all events, it is quite clear that there are very considerable prospects for Australia in selling uranium to France in the 1990s. If the contract price for 2,000 tonnes of uranium in the 1990s were anything like the present level-we will probably have to import large quantities of oil in the 1990s; it will be very important to increase our export earnings at that stage-it would be very beneficial to Australia. We believe that the Government made the right decision in the end, having foolishly incurred high compensation costs of about $100m to Queensland Mines Ltd, which presumably it will now get back, having offended a very important buyer of Australian uranium and having made no difference whatever to French nuclear policy in the South Pacific. The ban was totally useless, and the Government has now realised that. The Opposition believes it was sensible for the Government to make the decision it did. There are now great prospects for Australia to supply uranium to France in the 1990s. We believe that the view of the Democrats is totally misguided, as is the view of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. We certainly do not support the amendments to the Bill moved by the Democrats. Senator PARER(Queensland)(5.22) —I want to speak very briefly about this matter. Senator Gareth Evans —I should hope so because you have not heard anything of the rest of the debate. Senator PARER —I might even say what Senator Gareth Evans was going to say, so I might save him a few words. The amendments moved by the Democrats are absolutely shallow nonsense. They are scaremongering and emotionalism. They typify the fear of the unknown. One thing that is not recognised as one of the greatest breakthroughs in scientific history in this century is the splitting of the atom. People do not agree with the splitting of the atom for nuclear bombs, but for some nations the harnessing of the split atom for energy for peaceful purposes has provided opportunities that would not exist without it. Let us talk about the real world. The percentage of electricity generated by nuclear power plants in France in 1985-I will talk about France because this debate has zeroed in on France-was 64.8 per cent. Senator Sanders —What about the real world? What about the rest of the world? Senator PARER —I will come to that. In Belgium the figure was 59.8 per cent; in Taiwan, 59 per cent; in Switzerland, 39.8 per cent, and so it goes. As to the production of uranium, we have large resources of uranium, yet we are not by any means the largest producer. The largest producer of uranium in the Western world is Canada, which produces 31.2 per cent. One does not know what goes on behind the Iron Curtain. Australia produces only 10.2 per cent; Namibia, 10.2 per cent; South Africa, 13.2 per cent; and the United States, 12.5 per cent. At one time the Labor Government stopped the sale of uranium to France. What did it achieve? It achieved absolutely nothing. The Canadians applauded and thought: `That is great, we can supply the contracts that would have been supplied by Australia'. The Government, in its wisdom, has recognised the folly of its ways. We are not talking about testing nuclear bombs in the Pacific, we are talking about the generation of electricity from nuclear energy, nothing more nor less. The Democrats are trying to destabilise completely a growing world market for the production of uranium for nuclear power. Senator Sanders —I hope so. You've got it. Senator PARER —It is all right for Senator Sanders. What if he were in a country starved of energy resources? For example, for the purpose of generating electricity, 3,000 tonnes of enriched uranium is equal to 30 million tonnes of coal. If I were in one of those countries, making sane and normal decisions, which I know are beyond Senator Sanders, I would choose the 3,000 tonnes of uranium. The Democrats, by emotionalism and fearmongering, are out to destabilise a top class market. What is the effect? That is easy to answer. Just go to another country. There is lots of uranium around the world. We do not have the sole rights to the production of uranium. If one reads the London Economist one will find that recently the Japanese decided to go to China for their uranium supplies because it is just a little too hard and a little too costly to get it out of Australia. Senator Sanders —Succeeded again. Senator PARER —Senator Sanders has succeeded in destroying another Australian market at a time when our balance of payments situation is disastrous. Senator Sanders —You've got it. Senator PARER —I am pleased to hear Senator Sanders say that we have got it. If he wants to destroy the economy, let him go right ahead and try. I hope that everyone out there has heard what he said. The Opposition opposes these amendments. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.27) —The freedom of information documents show a number of things. They show that the Government has misled the Parliament and the Australian people progressively over months and years. They show, for example, that information asked of the Government during the recent appropriation debates and Estimates Committee debates has been less than forthcoming. Australia has a chronically adverse balance of payments situation. That statement is not just a statistic. Because of the adverse balance of payments situation the people of Australia are being punished. They are suffering lower standards of living and carrying heavier burdens. It is vitally necessary that that balance be restored, and it can be restored by the development of an expanding uranium market. The Australian Labor Party has a completely illogical uranium policy. It has two heads to it, like the god Janus. It must look to the left of the Labor Party with one head, saying: `We understand; we agree with you that there should be no uranium mining at all'. The other head looks out to the people of Australia, saying: `We know the facts. As good neighbours and under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, we ought to export uranium freely to the signatories and observers of the Treaty'. This decision is vital for the Government's Budget. The change from a policy of banning uranium to France to a policy of selling uranium to France is to balance the Budget. During the last three years I have asked two Ministers for Resources and Energy, first Senator Walsh and then Senator Evans, why they would not seek the markets that exist for uranium. Senator Walsh's answer has now been proven totally wrong, as so many of his answers are. He said: `There are not the markets'. I said repeatedly: `Why not let commerce go out and find them?'. `No', he said, `the Government knows best'. Senator Walsh continued to say that while he was Minister for Resources and Energy; but the Australian Science and Technology Council said in its report to the Government that there were abundant markets and that there were hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars to be gained if the Government supplied uranium as a good neighbour under strong safeguards. But no, a succession of Ministers said that there were no markets. In the recent debates on the Appropriation Bills I again asked about this because something called the little red book on energy has come out and it says that there are very substantial markets. I asked whether the Government would allow commerce to look for markets and whether it would ask the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia to again look at enrichment. But no, the Government knows best! The inference from Ministers has always been that, whatever else other people knew, the advice that the Government was getting from within the departments was that there were no markets. But here is advice from within the Government; here is documentary proof from the Department of Trade advising the Government that in fact there are very real markets-in France in this case. So it has not surveyed the rest of the world, where there must be many more markets. It is saying that by 1990 there will be an additional market for at least 2,000 short tonnes for France alone. That will do a significant amount to relieve the adverse balance of trade. If the Government feels that it has to do a fiddle by selling uranium to France to fix its Budget, why not do the honest thing? After all, I repeat the fundamental that must be understood: Every nation, including Australia, that is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is pledged by signature to that Treaty to provide nuclear material for peacetime purposes to all other member nations. It is pledged and is responsible to provide it under the very strict safeguards. So Australia, as a signatory amongst 134 nations, is pledged to supply its uranium for peacetime purposes. Australia has one of the large uranium resources. Yet although it is large, the amount we export is small compared with that from other countries. Clearly, Australia, under this Government, has missed the markets which we could have had, which could have produced literally billions of dollars more and which would have eased, if not overcome, the adverse balance of trade. The Government cannot argue that there is something wrong with doing this because, if it is right under the safeguards to export 3,000 or 4,000 tonnes of yellowcake a year, as I imagine it is doing today, it is just as right to export 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 tonnes. There cannot be any diminished virtue or any diminished security in increasing the volume that is being exported. The only thing that can justify this is that the left wing has such a stranglehold over the Australian Labor Party that it is in a Janus, two-headed, situation and has to say to the left wing: `Keep quiet about what we are doing. We will satisfy you by saying that we will not allow any expansion of mining'. To show how illogical it was, it was saying `We will not expand mining at all other than at Ranger', but then it looked as though the South Australian Labor Government would be defeated in the election. So in a completely hypocritical decision, the Government said: `We will let Roxby Downs be a new mine because, of course, when they are looking for copper and other materials they will find uranium and it can then be exported'. There can be no logic in this. All it can show is that a series of people are standing over this Government to the very great detriment of the people of Australia. The vital need for Australia at this moment is to get our exports up and thereby increase our export earnings so that we can be more prosperous and employ more people. That is vital. To show the absolutely ridiculous side of this, during the Appropriation debates I asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, who is in the chamber, about the proposal to develop the Coronation Hill mine in Arnhem Land. It is all right to develop the Coronation Hill mine in northern Arnhem Land but not other mines. Why? Because there are gold and other things there. The argument was: `We will get greater revenue for our export earnings to overcome the export deficit'. That is the thing: Develop a mine to get more money to overcome the deficit. But I said: `You are in the uranium province and Mount Brockman and its escarpment will, over a million years, have washed and leached uranium all over the place and you are bound to find some. When you do, will you allow its mining and its milling or will you dig a hole in the ground and put it back?' The answer was in fact that the Government would not allow its mining and milling but would dig a hole in the ground and put it back. The ludicrous nature of this must be seen. Here is an Australian community demanding more export earnings. I repeat: We are not starting some policy de novo and saying: `Let us export uranium'. We are exporting 3,000 or 4,000 tonnes of uranium a year. That is the Government's policy. There can be no difference in expanding the policy, other than some snide bargain, made within the Caucus and made by the Government's trade union masters, that it will not go further. The Government stands naked. The emperor's robes are gone completely. The Government was standing behind one defence that Senator Walsh put up-that there were no extra markets. That was the defence when the ASTEC report came out stating that there were billions of dollars more to be earned and that, in the interests of safeguarding nuclear non-proliferation, Australia ought to export. ASTEC said: `If you want to make this world safe against the improper use of fissile materials, Australia should be a good neighbour provider to the world of these materials and monitor their use'. We had the best advice we could have, from the top scientific body in Australia, and we also had 134 nations all in agreement in a treaty enforcing that. And the Government said: `There are no more markets'. Senator Walsh said so. As always, he is limiting-- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. I have not sought to interrupt Senator Sir John Carrick because I nurtured the fond hope that he might be drawing his remarks to a close, but his entire speech has been on general uranium marketing policy. It has not been addressed to the subject of these particular amendments, and I genuinely believe you ought to rule him out of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —There is no point of order. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Temporary Chairman, I point out to you that the whole of my speech has been directed to a paper under the Freedom of Information Act-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Carrick, I have ruled that there is no point of order. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Minister is showing his disability. When one is weak on facts and weak on law, one pounds the blooming table. He knows that because that is the pleading of bad lawyers. He was pounding the blooming table trying to get a speech stopped because it was showing how naked he and his Government are. ASTEC says: Expand the nuclear cycle to safeguard Australia and the world. It says that there is a market. The Uranium Enrichment Group said that, with Urenco-Centec, we can get a market and have an enrichment group that will employ Australians in Australia in a chemical industry which will give Australia more export earnings and will create more jobs. But no, the Government would not do it; it banned further exports. The other day the Minister said: `We may start it up again sometime'. How can we have policies that are non-policies? Senator Walsh says that there are no markets, the red book says that there are markets and then the Minister says that the Government knows best. I will tell honourable senators what the Government knows. It knows that its Department says that by the end of this decade the markets will have expanded by at least 2,000 short tonnes of yellowcake for France alone. What is there in the rest of the world? There is nothing left of the Minister's or the Government's argument. There is nothing now, except the left wing ideology which is preventing Australia and Australians from improving their balance of trade, getting more jobs and getting more export earnings. Incidentally, there was a lovely paragraph in that paper which says why we cannot get 13 or 14 of the papers. It is because it would breach commercial confidence in terms of trade. In other words, if they were available we would know more about what the trade would be. I can only say that nothing of the Government's uranium policy is left; it is totally in shreds. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.40) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I will be very brief. I have always held the view that if this place were open 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, somebody would stand up and speak. I have heard so many repetitious speeches today that it has been awful. I will not belabour the point. Basically, Senator Sir John Carrick said that we ought to export more uranium and control it. That is about the same as saying that if we want to control drugs let us grow a lot of heroin and sell it all over the world and control it. It does not work that way. If uranium is mined and sent all over the world, it will be misused. There are no safe uses for uranium. We have seen that from Chernobyl, from Three Mile Island, and from Windscale, over and over again. There are no peaceful uses. These amendments have been scathed as being badly drafted, ill prepared, et cetera, but the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, said that they were an elegant solution to the problems which we faced in bringing them forward. Senator Jessop said they were cunning. This would destroy the argument on both sides, that this is some sort of shonky trick that we are putting up-ill thought out and ill considered. In fact, it is an honest attempt to put the Australian Labor Party policy on the shipment of uranium to France into the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill 1986. It would delay the Bill; I admit that. It would delay it for several months-until February or whenever the lower House would consider it. However, it would put some teeth into the Bill. It would make it worth while. It would make our friends in the Pacific sit up and take notice, and it would make the entire world sit up and take notice, that we have taken a strong step in the control of nuclear weapons in the Pacific. As the operative wording is that `Australia will refuse to allow the supply of Australian uranium to France until France ceases testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific region', which, of course, is Labor Party Policy, I say that it is time for those ALP senators who believe in the ideals of the Labor Party to show that they still have guts enough to support what they know is right. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Sanders's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Sanders, N. K. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Newman, J. M. Coleman, R. N. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. Durack, P. D. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sheil, G. Evans, Gareth Short, J. R. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Townley, M. Grimes, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 16 September, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.52) —The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1986, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1986 and the Maritime College Amendment Bill 1986 are all designed to give effect to one thing, to the decision of the Hawke Labor Government to end universal free tertiary education in Australia. That is what these Bills effect and that is what these Bills do. Each of them provides a framework for the imposition of a charge or a fee on most tertiary students. The initial level of that charge or fee will be $250. These are surprising Bills to come from a Labor government, and particularly surprising because it was Labor, and Labor's present Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), that argued so vehemently when in opposition against any form of tertiary fees. I remember when we sought to introduce limited fees for second and higher degrees just a few years ago, in the 1981 Budget session. What did the Australian Labor Party say in relation to that proposal for fees when it was the Liberals who were proposing limited fees for higher and second degrees? Let us examine what Senator Susan Ryan said. We need go no further than Senator Ryan's own speech here in the Senate on 28 October 1981. I see the Minister smiling. I am sure she remembers it well. On that occasion she said: The Federal Australian Labor Party is totally opposed to the decision by the Government- the then Government- to impose tertiary fees on students in tertiary institutions. She went on to say: We will be opposing generally and specifically, all such measures. What a statement of hypocritical portent! How typical of Labor. When Labor was not responsible for the nation's affairs she said that Labor was totally opposed to a proposal to introduce fees. In government the Labor Party conveniently reversed and repudiated that position. Labor's opposition to fees was total and it was specific. Senator Ryan put it this way: The Opposition- that is, the Australian Labor Party- is also opposing as strongly as it can this measure because it believes that it is in fact the thin edge of the wedge. She said that our proposal was the thin edge of the wedge. She went on to say: Tertiary Education Legislation We, as I said, are opposed outright to those Bills . . . which seek to impose fees on students in tertiary institutions. Senator Ryan was not alone in making those statements. Mr John Dawkins, speaking in another place, said: It is not just that we are interested in opposing these fees for the groups of students who will have to pay them. We are opposed to the re-establishment of the principle of tertiary tuition fees in general. He further said: The Opposition- the Labor Opposition- is opposed to the re-introduction of tertiary tuition fees in any form. So Labor pursued its total, simple, clear and unequivocal opposition to our fee proposal in 1981 and it pursued that opposition in both chambers of the Parliament. It sought to justify and underpin that opposition with the same arguments being used now by affronted educational groups who oppose the breathtaking audacity and cynicism of this latest broken promise. Let us not forget that it was my Party that tried to introduce fees in a limited way for higher and secondary degrees and that it was Labor that then opposed them. It is now the Labor Party that, in an act of breathtaking audacity, has come in here and introduced what is in fact a fee for tertiary students. This is one of the most blatant of Labor's many broken promises in its 3 1/2 years in government. Those broken promises are alienating group after group. Because of broken promises students are being alienated from the Labor Party. Pensioners are being alienated, as are welfare beneficiaries. Senator Walsh is trying to interject. He is a Minister who is prepared to be part of a government that, having identified poverty traps and having determined to introduce legislation to help ease the poverty traps, will not allow that legislation to take effect for 12 months and then when the time comes to honour that promise, 12 months later, puts it off another eight months. That is the kind of government this Government is. Welfare beneficiaries are browned-off with this Government, so are unionists, so are home seekers and so are wage earners. Labor, in the last State election in Queensland, managed to lose 2.5 per cent of the total vote it obtained in the last Federal election. That loss represented a loss of almost 7 per cent of its Queensland vote of about 40 per cent. I hope that the Labor Party will take appropriate note of that because it is disaffected groups who are sick of the broken promises who are turning against this Party. It will lose many more votes in a Federal election whenever one is held. One particularly distressing feature of this whole exercise is the refusal of the Labor Government even to state honestly what it is proposing and what it is doing. It has already jacked up fees for all private overseas students. There is no question they are fees. It has already opened up the option of full fee paying places for extra private overseas students. That is a matter of record in the Minister's statement a year ago. The Government is now introducing a fee for most students, but in typical Hawke Labor Government newspeak it is not calling it a fee but is calling it something else. When it introduced its equal opportunity Bill it could not resist calling that Bill something else. The Bills we are considering now are about fees for tertiary education. If this legislation is passed a fee will be introduced. It requires many students, as a condition of their enrolment, to pay a new charge of $250 to the Government. Mr Dawkins, speaking for Labor in more open, straightforward, honest days, reminded us as follows: Another point that has to be made is that the Government is intent with this legislation- that was our Government- on re-establishing the principle of tertiary tuition fees. It is intent on re-establishing a fee collecting mechanism . . . That is why we- this is Mr Dawkins speaking for the Labor Party- are intent on opposing it . . . (If passed) it would be a quite simple matter for it in the future, without much fuss or bother, to extend the application of fees to include a vast array of other classes of students. That reason, if no other, is sufficient for us to oppose vigorously the reintroduction of fees. It is not just a question of the impact of fees on the admittedly relatively small group of students to whom they would apply; it is the question of preventing the re-establishment of a principle which this Government would have no hesitation in extending to include other groups. That is what Mr John Dawkins said in 1981 in criticising our proposal, and it is what outraged students and student groups are saying today. But they are not saying it on this occasion to the Fraser Government, they are saying it to the Hawke Labor Government and to a Labor Minister. Labor still persists with the fiction that the charge is not a fee. Every student who has to pay will know that he or she is $250 poorer, whether it is a fee or a charge. To my simple mind it is a fee associated with their pursuit of higher education. Whatever the Minister may say, whatever kind of double talk she may use, the rest of the world has no doubt that this is a fee. The Federation of Australian University Staff Associations-the academics-in its briefing notes for the Federal Budget talked about it in the following terms: In higher education, the Government has offset the cost of the promised extra places by levying a $250 fee- `fee' is the word used by FAUSA- on tertiary students. Although this is called an `administrative charge' it does not change the fact contrary to stated government policy the Government has, in fact, introduced tertiary fees. That is the view of the University Staff Associations. We all know that this is a fee. Students know, academics know and many other educational lobby groups know. They all know. Not only is this a fee, but the charges will be unfair and inequitable in their application. The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, representing all the vice-chancellors of Australia from the 19 universities, points out: The Vice-Chancellors feel that it is inequitable that part-time students, including many that are enrolled externally, will be required to pay the same level of charge as a full-time student. This will mean that part-time students will be paying $2,000 and more for a course for which a full-time student might only be paying a little over $750. Part-time and external students are discriminated against by the flat rate charge. Further, many people are seeking to improve their economic status by completing tertiary studies and now, because of the charge, they may be unable or unwilling to undertake such studies. Let us see whether Labor senators are honest enough to address just this one of the many inequities and inconsistencies. It is true that part-time students and external students will be unduly affected. I understand, although I have not seen them, that there may be amendments from the Australian Democrats which may put Labor senators to the test. Senator Macklin —They were circulated. Senator PETER BAUME —I can tell Senator Macklin that we are the Party which openly sought to introduce fees in 1981. We are not going to support the Democrats proposed amendments, for reasons I will explain later, but it will be interesting to see whether the Labor Party is prepared to address the inequities and inconsistencies which the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee has thrown up. No, the Labor Party sees this measure in terms of revenue. It is interested in putting this as a tax upon tertiary education to improve and to increase its revenue. It wants to do this to fund many wasteful, spendthrift and reckless policies in a whole range of areas which we all know are bankrupting Australia. This Government should be cutting expenditure in a large number of areas in which it has not. It should be bringing its Budget under control and it should be controlling the level of our overseas debt. No, Labor has introduced these fees to help replenish its coffers. If fees are to be charged they should be charged not just to raise revenue. The only justification for tertiary fees is if they will enable, allow and ensure greater access to tertiary education. They are permissible only if they will allow greater choice in tertiary education. They are permissible only if they can create a second entry stream such as the Government has allowed for certain private overseas students, who may be able to pay full fees. We see fees as being permissible only if they will give greater freedom in tertiary education and only if they will make tertiary education more responsive. We want to see a system of tertiary education or higher education in Australia characterised by hope, expansion, excellence and flexibility. Any interest that we have in fees is only in pursuit of those goals. My colleague Mr Peter Shack, the honourable member for Tangney, made our approach clear when, as our shadow Minister, he spoke at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology on 14 August this year. This was about the time that Senator Ryan was quoted in the Australian of 9 August 1986 as having said: The Federal Government has ruled out reintroducing tertiary fees in the Budget . . . The Federal Government quashed Budget speculation that fees could be reintroduced for university and college students. Her Press release stated: The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, said at the Western Australian Institute of Technology on Thursday night: `We will not impose tuition fees'. A spokesman for Senator Ryan yesterday said her comments were `unqualified in their scope'. What kind of double talk is this? They were absolutely ironclad assurances a few days before the Budget that there would be no fees and those assurances were unqualified in their scope. But what do we find? The fees come in but they are called something else to try to make them appear to be what they are not. The Minister can say as much as she wants that it is an administrative charge. I know that students will not be allowed to enrol, or in some cases to re-enrol, in a succeeding year unless the fee is paid. It is a fee associated with their obtaining a tertiary qualification; it is a tertiary fee. My Party will renew higher education in Australia. We will release the energies of people waiting to be allowed to succeed and if fees for some people need to be part of such a system, we will lay out that possibility clearly well in advance of any action. Fees have been introduced by Labor in this Budget by stealth, by deceit, by pretending that there were no fees and by calling them something else. Honourable senators should ask any private overseas student in this country whether fees have been raised by large amounts. They have no doubt that fees have been increased by this Government. Full fee-paying places are a possibility under this Labor Government, but only for private overseas students, for non-Australians. We now have the extension of fees to the majority of Australian tertiary students. We have to assume that the arguments put up by Labor senators and members in 1981 about the thin end of the wedge and about the increase in the level of fees are as valid today as they were then. It is likely that the fee-$250 this year-will increase. It will be used this year to pay administration costs. It will probably be at a higher level later because Senator Ryan has already said that it is to be indexed. So it will go up automatically each year to higher levels. It may be used to pay part of academic costs. No doubt Senator Ryan, on behalf of the Government, is promoting this measure because she believes in it. No doubt she is introducing this administration charge or fee because she believes it is right for the country so to do. I want her to explain to us at some time what educational merit and justification lead her to take this approach on this fee in this manner. I am sure she would not come in here and introduce something in which she does not believe or something which she cannot promote as having some inherent educational purpose and goal. No doubt she will explain to us all in due course what that goal and what that purpose are. When we look at this legislation we see another broken promise, another act of blatant hypocrisy and another betrayal of yet one more group whose votes were purchased falsely in 1982, 1983 and 1984 with promises which have been repudiated and which could not be kept. The $250 fee addresses none of the issues facing higher education today. None of the problems of purpose, mission, priorities and possibilities within higher education are addressed by this fee. Of course, the decision has infuriated Labor's traditional campus friends, and well it might. It is quite clear that, with this measure, universal free tertiary education in Australia is now dead. It is Senator Susan Ryan and a Labor government that have produced this situation. As for our position, we regard this measure as part of Labor's Budget and, quite apart from anything else, we will not oppose it on those grounds. We say to the students of Australia that the way to resolve this situation is to get rid of the Government. But while the Government is in office and it introduces Budgets which impose such fees, Senator Walsh will get his 30 pieces of silver and he will continue to use it to bankrupt this country. The solution for students, pensioners and all of the aggrieved groups is for them to use their votes at the first possible occasion to get rid of this pathetic Government. To Senator Macklin I indicate that we have some sympathy for the amendments to be moved on behalf of the Australian Democrats. We think that the logic of the position he is putting up is impeccable. But we are not prepared, in terms of a general view that we have taken, to interfere with the processes of the Labor Party's Budget and we will not be supporting any measure which interferes with that Budget process. We think that this Government is failed and bankrupt. But we think that while it is in office its Budget Bills should be passed. We regard this measure as one such Bill and, though we have nothing but contempt for the Government, the Bill will not be opposed by us. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.13) —The Senate is debating cognately the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1986, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1986 and the Maritime College Amendment Bill 1986. The last time we debated the issue of student fees was when the Liberal-National Party Fraser Government attempted to impose fees on students undertaking second and higher degrees. The Australian Democrats opposed the legislation at that time. We oppose the imposition of fees by the Australian Labor Party at this time. We believe that the circumstances with which we are faced in terms of the Bills we are now debating are identical to those when the Fraser Government was in power. They are based on the same reasoning, the same logic and essentially the same approach to tertiary education in Australia. First, I would like to look at the actual figuring with regard to these Bills. I must admit that the results depend very much on whether one takes the explanation of the Budget by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), the information set out in the Budget Papers or the guidelines to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. I have chosen to take the guidelines to CTEC to get a rough estimation of what the figure is. In fact, the figures from those three sources differ, which is extraordinary in itself. The CTEC guidelines show that the flat tax on students-and that is what it is-will bring in a gross amount of $96m. The institutions may keep $10m of that amount which leaves us, in round terms, with $86m. A refund in respect of Austudy, Commonwealth post-graduates and other exceptions seems to be costed at roughly $28m, which takes the net gain to the Commonwealth down to $58m. This is about the figure that turns up in most of the Budget Papers. It seems that the Government then managed to sell this measure to its own back bench by saying that this net gain would go into the education budget. Indeed, this might be the case but an interesting fiddle has taken place on the way. The new places that this $58m is supposed to be funding are going to cost $18m. That still leaves us with $40m from the flat tax on students. Where does that go? Quite precisely, it goes to plug up the gap that appeared when the Government dropped the amount of money that it was spending on tertiary education. The Government has been able to maintain its commitment to tertiary education in Australia only by taxing students. That is the only way in which it has been able to do that, and it has done it effectively to the tune of $58m. If we take off that extra $18m from existing students to fund new students, it is plugging the gap to the tune of $40m. It would be interesting to see whether the Government agrees with that analysis and, if not, I would like to hear how the Minister manages to arrive at the quite extraordinary figures that keep bobbing up in the ever-enthusiastic Press releases which come from her office. Quite frankly, we are talking about a reinstitution of the user pays principle which was the basis of the Australian Democrats' objection to the Fraser Government operation and which is the basis of our objection to the Labor Government operation. There have been some rather desultory contributions to the debate about public and private contributions to tertiary education in Australia. I would like to take some time in this second reading debate to tease out some of those items because they seem to me to be fundamental to this debate. I would like to defer to the Committee stage my remarks on the more detailed items in these Bills. I simply say now in passing that the amendments that Senator Peter Baume said he does not have were actually circulated in the chamber on 17 November. We will be moving amendments to a number of clauses. For example, we propose to move an amendment which will have the effect of not allowing the Government to gazette but rather only to make regulations with regard to exemptions. We will be seeking to move an amendment with regard to part time students. Also, we will be seeking to move an amendment to put in a sunset clause because we believe that this is an acceptable thing to do. Lastly, at the end of the Committee stage we will be seeking to move that these Bills be referred to a Senate committee for report because we believe that this whole matter has never been the subject of a detailed dispassionate inquiry. I would hope that such a committee report would provide us with a much more intelligent education debate than the one which has been pursued so far in Australia on this issue. I start my remarks about the fundamental operation of the user pays principle by referring to the experience of the United States of America in particular. I refer to the United States because it is the largest example in the world of private tertiary education. It is a system similar to our own; it is one with which we can make some comparisons. Although not every comparison will hold up in its entirety, there are sufficient similarities between our systems and the aspirations of our peoples to make it worth while looking at the United States to see what is going on there. I also choose the United States with regard to private education because it is generally held up as the most successful example of private contributions to tertiary education. The United States system is an example of a mix between private and state higher education institutions. The private institutions receive public subsidies directly. That is the first item I wish to raise. It is often not acknowledged in the debate about the United States. Not only do they receive public subsidies directly; they are also financed very much indirectly through various systems that operate at Federal, State and institutional level. That is to say, students attending a private institution can be supported in terms of the payment of their fees by one of a number of very expensive support systems that are provided by the Federal Government in the United States. Alternatively, they may be supported by a support system at the State level or, again, they may be subsidised by the institution itself, for a variety of reasons. The last of these is not a very large contribution, of course, but it is an important contribution. Certainly in dollar terms it is quite significant from the point of view of Australia. Senator Peter Baume —Harvard is earning interest on $2.5 billion, isn't it? Senator MACKLIN —I will come shortly to the matter of the capital base of these institutions. As the various levels of grants which were available declined over time and as the costs also increased, students had to increase their borrowings. This introduced a new element into the United States-the negative dowry effect. An average borrowing has now come to be called in the United States a negative dowry. People can probably see why that is so, given the fact that tertiary students in the United States tend to be very much in the marriageable age bracket and given the fact that they tend to marry other students at tertiary institutions. Because of the high attendance at tertiary institutions, it is much more likely that a student's marriage partner would also be a student. Such young married couples would have this negative dowry. In the United States when one gets married one does not bring assets but massive debts. Those types of debts depend very much on the types of courses studied. They may be as low as $5,000 if the student is attending a liberal arts college. They may go up to something of the order of $11,000 if one is attending a reasonably prestigious middle-rung university doing a science or technology course. They can go up further, and it is almost a case of the sky is the limit in the case of the high prestige institutions. In those places the amounts that may have to be borrowed are often in excess of $20,000 or $30,000. It is interesting to note, too-when I was recently in the United States I managed to get some of the more recent figures on this-that the fees that are charged have risen well above inflation for the last few years. So the institutions are charging more, the people are borrowing more, and the pressure is now turned back on to the Federal Government and the political parties in Congress to do something about it. As somebody said: `The only people who seem to be able to attend American higher education institutions are either the very poor or the very rich; the middle class got squeezed out'. Because the middle class got squeezed and because the middle class provides the basis of any political survival in the United States in particular, certainly in terms of votes, because it has a voluntary voting system, the Congress had to respond immediately. It responded with a plethora of support systems aimed specifically at enabling the middle classes to attend higher education institutions. One area through which those private institutions in the United States are able to take in public moneys is that of fees. I point out to the Government that, looking at that fact, at the failure of the private institutions in Japan in the early 1960s, at the problems of the private institutions around the world-Birmingham is a very interesting example; it managed to get itself off the ground only when the local institutions funded fees for students-indeed, it is the fees which are a crucial issue in the operation of private institutions around the world. I point out to this Labor Government that its intrusion into the area of fees is not only setting up the context of being able to proceed in that direction, it is also setting up the context for a private sector in the tertiary education system in Australia. That is what it is doing. I do not know whether it realises it is doing that. I do not know whether it bothered looking at the comparisons and the operations of those private systems around the world, but that is precisely what it is doing. We all admit that modern higher education is an incredibly expensive business. In terms of the most wealthy private institutions in the United States-that is, Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-the endowments there represent 24 per cent of the total endowments of all higher education in the United States. They are the ones with the wealthy base, the capital base, and they are still in difficulties, because it is a massively expensive operation. More than that, it is inherent in the operation of a private institution that it has to offer more, if there is a scarcity of positions, or better, if there is a reasonable number of positions, or else it must add to what is available-for example, the old school tie effect, or something like that. It has to offer one of those three things or it is not in the race. The difficulty is that in each of those areas, unlike the private sector in almost every other sphere, the thing which gives prestige to a higher education institution is having well known professors on high fees doing little teaching. It is that type of thing that gives prestige, and it is that type of thing, quite frankly, which is not conducive to attracting terribly many clients. Clients are attracted for reasons other than that. Clients are attracted for what they can get out of the institution, not for what the institution is itself. So there are some inherent problems in the operation of these private sector institutions within our type of system. I think these have not been looked at sufficiently. The point I was making about the endowments for those institutions representing 24 per cent of total endowments is that, according to a paper published in the European Journal of Education last year, the rest of the private sector in the United States relies on heavy subsidies from the public purse merely to exist, either through direct grants or through subsidies by way of fees from students. That is what worries me about this move on the part of the Government. It is not just the thin edge of the wedge argument in terms of fees. It is the setting up of a whole context in terms of the future development of our higher education sector in Australia. The point is that with the system of private and public institutions and colleges-with fees, grants and loans schemes and that whole situation-the demands on the public purse grow rather than lessen. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MACKLIN —Before the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the package of Bills that we have before us and looking at the basic philosophical thrust that I see emerging from the Government's intention to reimpose fees for the first time since they were removed by the Whitlam Government in 1972. I was looking at the United States mixed system and the difficulty of that system existing except by significant public funds being channelled through to institutions via the support mechanisms for student fees; likewise, the capacity of a number of the prestigious universities to continue their operations by a massive capital investment fund, that fund not being available to most of the liberal colleges and the smaller universities dotted across the United States. The overall effect in the United States is that 65 per cent of current expenditure on higher education is met directly by the public purse either at the Federal or State level and of course a higher percentage indirectly through other means. When one looks at that-and the history of the private institutions in the United States goes back well over a hundred years-one must be daunted in one's enthusiasm to overthrow the system that has operated here in Australia for so long. Indeed, when one turns to the Australian system, the most recent report that we have, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education, shows quite clearly that Australia's system of higher education by and large has performed well in the last decade, certainly since fees have been removed. I believe that, if one reads that report right the way through, one is struck by the fact that it makes a very close examination of our current operation system. One finds a statement such as that on page 244: . . . Australian higher education has operated at lower costs per student, while at the same time broadening access and exhibiting a high degree of responsiveness to changed community demands for courses. Furthermore, progress rates have been maintained or improved, thus reducing costs per graduate to a greater extent than the fall in costs per capita. That is an interesting comment, and certainly when one hears all the talk about higher education and the costs associated with it, it is a change to see a thorough analysis of the economics of education. It is interesting to see that economies have come into the system, that the system has been responsive to the demands made by the community and that it is seeking to meet ever increasing demands for expertise and effectiveness at the same time as for lower costs. The higher education sector has worked well under the existing system of funding and planning, particularly in terms of the growth in equity and efficiency. Frankly, the problem is not the mechanisms but the fact that, as the Australian Democrats believe, there is now not enough oil to keep that machinery running smoothly. There need to be additional public funds for higher education rather than the self-defeating searches, which have become the vogue in Australia, for magic solutions involving fees, private institutions or some type of mix. The break in the philosophy of the Labor Government, the acceptance now of the user pays principle, is taking us down a road which will not in the end give us the type of equity which we are looking for and which the community is demanding. The CTEC review points out that total public sector funding of higher education as a proportion of gross domestic product declined by more than a third between 1975 and 1985. The higher education sector has had to do with less and less. Government in this country must have the will in relation to higher education. We are not simply looking at expenditure in this area in the same way as we look at so many other areas in which money is expended and nothing is returned. Here we are looking at the development of the imagination, capacities and skills of all Australian citizens and that investment in our citizens should be treated in the same way as or even in a higher way than investments in so many other areas in this country. We must talk about the investment that we, as a community, are willing to make in higher education rather than talking about costs, as so often happens in education debates in this community. The CTEC report has shown that those costs are contained and that there is and has been increasing efficiency. That should be recognised in the debate. We should also recognise the imperative demand for increased funding, particularly in the area of capital investment. The Australian Democrats believe that education is a public good where the social rate of return vastly exceeds the private rate of return. This country requires and needs the higher education sector. I believe that the searches I have described for so-called magical solutions in this area are really not down the path that the Government is taking with its user pays principle, which is enshrined in these pieces of legislation. Free market economists may not perceive any theoretical reason why higher education cannot become part of the capitalist economy, but when one looks around the world at actual operating systems-in Japan, the United States or Europe-one is hard pressed indeed to find the type of responses that those promoters of the capitalist economy in higher education say is there. Private colleges and universities have in fact been singularly unsuccessful in our types of society in being able to enter into capital markets and they are simply unable to charge the full extent of fees which are necessary in order to provide the quality of education for which the community is searching. In these circumstances, if one merely meant that one would allow the free market to operate, then one would not see a private institution operating. But of course, that is not what the debate is about. The rigorous and very severe strictures of the free enterprise system would simply rule out private institutions. In the light of the realities of current costs in higher education, private higher education is not on. It is simply naive to argue that market forces would produce socially optimal levels of product mix, design, quality and price. I believe all those have been met by publicly funded institutions in this country. Senator Peter Baume —Not optimal, though. Senator MACKLIN —Optimal for the expenditure that we are willing to put out. This is the difficulty. I am working in that framework, Senator. Under present conditions, the high cost of quality higher education and its extensive penetration in our community-nowhere near as extensive as in the United States, Great Britain or a number of other countries, but extensive nevertheless-and the considerable social returns that this country has already derived and will derive in the future from its higher education, either directly in terms of graduates or indirectly through the research efforts that are carried on in this country mainly within those institutions, all present a very persuasive case in Australia for a continuation of and support for publicly funded higher education. Private alternatives I think might very well be able to complement state controlled higher education in a number of ways. However, it is doubtful that any one of those would be an exemplar of the private enterprise system because if the private enterprise system were really allowed to work those private institutions could not exist. I believe that is the type of debate we really have to confront in Australia: It is not about whether private institutions privately funded should be allowed to exist-they can exist-it is whether we are going to have private institutions supported by the public purse or public institutions supported by the public purse. In terms of equity in distribution, in a country which has such a small population, such a large area and limited resources, we would be absolutely insane to go down that path at this time. I believe we need to support the current institutions as they are and to encourage as many students as we can into higher education. We need also to work on the social mix in higher education. I completely reject the notion that since fees have been abolished there has not been a change in the social mix. There has been a dramatic change in the ability of women to enter higher education. In fact almost double the percentage of women now partake in higher education in this country. I am not saying that is totally and completely a result of the removal of fees but that is a contributing factor. The greater incidence of mature age students, who are of course economic students to deal with in higher education, in higher education is also contributed to by the absence of fees. I believe that the imposition of these fees will go no way to promoting that equity in Australia that we have come to desire and need. It is a retrograde step and it opens the way for other retrograde steps, particularly in increasing fees and opening the real prospect of a publicly funded private higher education sector. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(8.12) —We are dealing with the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1986, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1986 and the Maritime College Amendment Bill 1986 together. They have the effect, amongst other things, of imposing fees. I do not think we can use any word other than `fees' for the imposition that the Government has decided to put upon the students throughout this country. As Senator Peter Baume has already said, it is seen by the Opposition as the breaking of yet another promise by the Labor Government. One of the things that Mr Whitlam did that I agreed with, and heaven knows there were not many, was remove university fees. Senator Aulich —Most of your colleagues did not. Senator TOWNLEY —I agree that they should have been withdrawn and I would be very surprised if most of my colleagues did not agree with that proposal. I do not believe that this country has enough investment in educating people to higher levels. Yet we see this Government now imposing one more difficulty in the way of those people who want tertiary education. Introduction of an administration charge for those attending tertiary institutions has arguments against it and only a few in favour of it. The disadvantages of it are clearly seen to outweigh the advantages when one considers them fully. I think the argument for the proposal is that it will produce another form of revenue. People will be encouraged perhaps to study full time, thus reducing the per capital funding. It is said that 3,000 more positions are to be created. It can be argued that relatively low graduation rates of part time and external students are a form of inefficiency. Although I acknowledge the need for the production of extra revenue it has to be looked at in comparison with the funding probably needed for added administration and monitoring of the system. I will go into that a little later. I refer now to the 3,000 new positions that could be created. Because some students currently enrolled in tertiary studies will have to terminate their studies-many of them will have to terminate their studies due to the implementation of this charge-those filling the vacancies and those taking up the extra 3,000 positions may not be as well qualified, which will cause the average educational standard to be lowered. In relation to the argument that inefficiencies are produced by the relatively low rate of graduation of part time students, the value of part time and external studies to large groups of disadvantaged students has to be remembered. The report of the Hudson Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education states: Thus while it may be theoretically possible to improve the efficiency of the Higher Education system in terms of expenditure for graduates by limiting opportunities for part-time and external study, any gain would be offset by a substantial reduction in the opportunity to enter education, particularly for significant groups of disadvantaged students. I think that is a very important point. It is one which has just been made by Senator Macklin. The arguments against the proposal are many and valid. Firstly, one of the outstanding anomalies of the administration charge, or fee-I would rather call it a fee-is that part time students are being charged the same amount as full time students. It is absolute rubbish to argue that a student who does one unit for one semester should be charged the same administration costs as a full time student studying six units over three faculties for, say, a whole year. While full time students who qualify for Austudy benefits are exempt from the charge, nearly all part time students are expected to pay it. As the charge is payable for as many years as the student attends a tertiary institution a part time student may end up paying $750 to $1,000 in additional charges to complete the same degree as a full time student. So it is quite obvious to me-it should be to anybody, in particular the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) who is at the table-that part time students would be greatly disadvantaged by the extra financial burden they face. It can safely be expected that the number of part time students will decline. I think that has been admitted already. Of course in my State of Tasmania there are more part time students per head of population than in any other State. Tasmania is a fairly decentralised State, as is Queensland, although it does not have as many people. But in Tasmania more part time people per head of population attend tertiary institutions than anywhere else in the country. My colleague the honourable member for Bass, Mr Warwick Smith, made a speech in the other place on this legislation. He mentioned the Tasmanian Institute of Technology, which is based in Launceston. It is a very good institution. He said: This institution has about 2,220 full time students. By 1991, on current projections, it is hoping to get the figure up to nearly 2,750. The interesting thing about that institution is that 54 per cent of its students are part time or external students. That is a particularly high percentage. It is estimated now by the college that the imposition of this $250 fee across the board, without any pro rata application at all, will see an immediate 20 per cent drop off of part timers next year. That is a dramatic fall. I turn now to the introduction of this administrative charge. Why does the Government call it an administrative charge? Why does it not just impose the same charge on everyone? If it imposed the same charge on every subject it would have to admit that it is nothing other than a fee. For some reason, this is one broken promise that the Government does not like to admit. Obviously it is just another example of this Labor Government breaking promises. I believe this promise was made very shortly before the last Budget. It just shows how much the young people of this country can trust the people in this Government. The other matter honourable senators have to remember-this has been mentioned already-is that the administration charge is regarded by many people as the thin end of the wedge. This so-called charge of $250 in 1987 may seem to some to be a reasonable figure, but who is to know whether future governments will see it in this way? Who is to stop governments of the future from doubling, tripling or even multiplying by a larger factor this fee over five or 10 years to come? It has been this Government's policy particularly to index things according to the consumer price index. Is it going to do that in this situation? If so, how on earth are we going to stop it? I know the Minister has made protestations. She has said that the Government will not do that. Senator Macklin —The Minister said that the Government would not put a fee on it. Senator TOWNLEY —Senator Macklin says that the Minister has said the Government will not put a fee on, but that has gone by the board. I would not be at all surprised to see this fee increasing. While the administration charge may be accepted by future tertiary students-that is, those leaving school now or in future-as a fact of tertiary studies, they will, accordingly, budget for it because they have accepted it. A large number of students studying work to a very tight financial budget. They may be assisted by their family or by the state. Some of them are not assisted. These students now have to find an additional $250 to $1,000, depending on the number of years study they have left to pay for this charge over the years to come. In the present financial climate, together with the rising costs of accommodation, text books, living expenses and so on, this demand of a further charge is quite an enormous one. It places an added strain on students in an already limited financial situation. A lot of people are doing part time study because they cannot afford to go to university full time. They are the ones who will be most affected. It seems to me that this Government has not recognised or has not thought this situation right through. There is another point I should mention at this juncture; that is, a lot of the students who go along to buy things that were sales tax exempt until just recently, such as computer equipment, adding machines and other things that used to be sales tax exempt, now have to pay sales tax on those items. Not only is the Government getting at the tertiary students by the application of the $250 fee, but it has also got at them without much announcement by way of the sales tax legislation. This proposal too fails to take any account of families with two or more dependants who may be at a tertiary institution. For families unable to minimise taxation, few education benefits apply. They may then have to make the choice of educating one member of the family ahead of another. For example, in families of older traditions or foreign backgrounds, I think the priorities will be seen to be the older and/or male members of the family. That will disadvantage younger and female members of that particular family. Whilst on this topic of disadvantaged female members of the public, in 1974 when the government of the day abolished the full cost tertiary fees and introduced-- Senator Ryan —They were not full cost in 1973. Senator TOWNLEY —I am sorry; they were not. Senator Ryan —They were fees but they were not full cost. Senator TOWNLEY —The removal of fees at that time gave access to tertiary education to various disadvantaged sectors. The Minister will have to admit that. The disadvantaged sectors particularly include single, independent mothers and single women from low income families. From 1974 there has been a significant increase in the number of women studying at universities and colleges of advanced education. That will now be reversed. Most of the women are excluded from the tertiary education assistance scheme on the assumption that they are dependent on their fathers, husbands or de factos. This means that the abolition of tertiary fees was a very significant factor in the increased participation of women in higher education. Senator Peter Baume —All women. Senator TOWNLEY —I know, but it is true particularly for those participating in higher education. Conversely, it can be argued that the imposition of the administration charge or fee or whatever one calls it will represent another disincentive on top of the practical, financial or cultural disincentives that already inhibit women's participation in education. Is that what the Minister, Senator Ryan, really intends? That is what is happening. Senator Ryan —Rubbish. Senator TOWNLEY —The Minister would also have to say that what Senator Macklin said before me is rubbish. Obviously she has not listened to the people who have told us of their complaints about the broken promise of the Australian Labor Party. Senator Crichton-Browne —You should not blame Senator Ryan. She got rolled in Cabinet. Senator TOWNLEY —I am sorry; I am not going to talk about that today. I do not believe that this is what the Minister really wanted. It may well mean that she got rolled, but we are not talking about that. Overseas students suffer the same problem of increased financial strain. They have already had massive increases-- Senator Ryan —There is no effect on overseas students. Senator TOWNLEY —They have already had their increase slammed on them, but the Minister says that there is no effect. The Minister can get stuck into them because they do not vote for anyone. It is a bit like the situation in the Northern Territory. Those opposite pushed around the people in the Northern Territory because politically they were expendable. I will not get on to that matter, but we have all seen what the Government did to the people of the Northern Territory and the way it ignored their wishes. In the last few minutes tonight I would like to discuss the monitoring of the system and the administrative funding which I mentioned earlier. The ability of the Government to monitor the effects of the administrative charge is very questionable. The commitment to monitoring the effects of the charge would require a serious program of collection of data within the tertiary education sector. Such a program has not been adequately available in the past. For the Government to endorse the administrative charge in the absence of such a system raises serious questions. Furthermore, the proposal puts the onus on individual campuses to develop mechanisms for the collection of the fee and campuses already face enough difficulty in maintaining adequate levels of administrative support compared with the student load. While the number of students participating in higher education has increased dramatically, there has been no real rise in funding for administrative staff. It seems apparent that quite a deal of the money that is raised by this fee will be needed to fund staff to organise it and collect it correctly. One has to look at how effective revenue collection would be, when one subtracts the cost of collecting it. The approach of individual campuses to the treatment of students will differ, which will inevitably lead to gross inconsistencies. Some institutions may be sympathetic towards students to ensure that the process is flexible and equitable-that is, if they are allowed to be flexible by the Government-while others may be very strict, or even harsh, in the guidelines they use to protect their funding mechanisms. This case is highlighted by the implementation of the special assistance for students schemes. The ease or difficulty with which students can gain loans varies greatly, depending upon the attitudes and assumptions of people developing and implementing the guidelines. Surely examples such as those I have mentioned tonight point to the ludicrousness of implementing a system that fails to adequately address concepts of fairness. This legislation is not fair, by any judgment. The reluctance of the Government to develop an equitable system is understandable, given the fact that the cost of developing such a system could far outweigh the financial revenue accrued from the present administrative charge. The cost to the higher education system must be carefully balanced so that at the end of the day the Government is sure that the human cost does not outweigh the financial benefit it obtains. Having shown the inconsistencies and problems, I urge the Government to think carefully about this administration charge and fully consider its long viability and equity. Certainly the Government must re-examine the application of this fee-I use the word `fee' on purpose-to part time students and recognise that, as proposed, this legislation is most unfair. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(8.33) —I rise to speak in the debate on the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1986, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1986 and the Maritime College Amendment Bill 1986 largely because of my key concern, which is also a concern of the Government, to see participation and equity in education, particularly in higher education. I have a strong sense of unreality in this debate, particularly following the contribution of Senator Townley. There is no question that the impact of the imposition of the so-called $250 administration charge on the ability of individuals to participate in any equitable fashion in higher education will be quite severe. I do not say that just from my own point of view. I say it having talked to students and to prospective students, and to people of all ages and from all sectors of the community. It is of particular concern to me that the group of people in this community likely to be most affected by the imposition of this fee and what will doubtless be further impositions over time, whether under a Labor Government or under a coalition government, is women. Currently the coalition parties confess that they do not have a policy on tertiary education fees. When the three political parties were confronted just a few weeks ago by students in my State at Deakin University and asked these very questions it was admitted by the local member, a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, that there was no policy. However, in spite of the protestations-albeit so gently put by Senator Townley-there is no question that the Opposition's lack of action on the amendments the Australian Democrats will propose, in all fairness, to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill demonstrates the truth of what that local member said: There is no policy and, therefore, there is no action. I have a particular concern for one group in this context, and that is women. Since genuinely free tertiary education became a fact, oddly enough under the previous Labor Government, in 1974, post-secondary education in its various forms has become more accessible to women. In 1975, 40.7 per cent of students at colleges of advanced education were women. In 1984 the figure was 46.8 per cent. In universities the figure has risen from 37.9 to 48 per cent. Since we first had figures, in 1982, the figure for technical and further education institutions has risen from 48 to 53 per cent. There has been, demonstrably, a substantial impact on access and, therefore, equity, for women students under the system in which no form of tertiary fees applied. It is therefore ironic that Senator Townley should have concluded his remarks by expressing concern about the position of women under this legislation. It is a simple fact that if the Opposition's protestations were genuine, it could join us and oppose the legislation. It is important that people should appreciate that what is being done here is a reduction of access. When I speak of those numbers of women, it is very important to me, in particular, as a woman who comes from a rural environment, that we should recognise that there is a double disadvantage for some groups of women, and among them are rural women. It has already been recognised in the debate that when there are extra impositions on families, such as problems with extra payments, sometimes a set of priorities will have to exist. In the case of many families, rural families and families of migrant background, it is most often the case that it is the female children who have to take second rank. In this context, although to many people $250 might not seem a very large amount, when a family has several children to educate, at different levels over many years, the question of $250 is the one which could very well decide the fate of many female children in such families. When honourable senators vote on this legislation they should bear that fact very clearly in their minds. I also draw attention to the fact that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has expressed concern about the impact of this legislation. It has called for close monitoring-and so, too, do the Australian Democrats. The Commission has pointed out that the $11m special assistance student payment next year will be at risk because of those anomalies which have already been referred to in the debate, which will make a heavy impact into that special assistance payment area. We should be considering that when looking at this legislation. It is not a concern felt by the Democrats alone but one which the Tertiary Education Commission has highlighted. As the Commission said: Despite the provision of the range of exemptions the administration charge is likely to have an impact on both participation and equity in higher education. The most severe impact may be seen among part-time and external enrolments . . . Those are the very areas of anomaly which the Democrats' amendments will be addressing. The Tertiary Education Commission went on to say: It can also be expected that certain course areas will be affected disproportionately by the charge; for example, those areas such as teacher education and nurse education which cater for large numbers and which have cut-off scores for entry that are typically lower than for most other discipline areas. I remind the Senate, which I should not need to do, that those are areas of high participation by women. It is in those areas that the impact on women is particularly great. In my conversations with students who are currently in tertiary education and who feel that they are at risk, apart from those areas of high participation by women about which I have spoken, I have found a considerably large number of people who, having found themselves out of employment, have gone into post-secondary education of one kind or another to retrain themselves, in the absence of any official or supported government retraining schemes. It is those people who are studying part time. Many of them are men, family breadwinners, who have found themselves unemployed-as the statistics show, this is happening for increasingly long periods and to increasing numbers-and who have chosen not to throw themselves on the mercy of the public system but to get into the education system. They are most markedly affected by the imposition of a $250 fee, especially when they have to pay that at the beginning of the year when all the other enrolment charges also apply. That is another anomaly which we would have liked to have had addressed. As the Tertiary Education Commission noted, there is a range of exemptions. At the Committee stage the Australian Democrats will raise specifically a number of areas which appear to us not to be exempted but which we believe cover a very great number of people who are involved in post-secondary education and whose access will be limited by the imposition of this fee. These include age pensioners, people receiving a sheltered employment allowance, people receiving a rehabilitation allowance and people on a wives pension-that is, the wife of an aged or invalid pensioner or rehabilitation employee who was previously eligible for an invalid pension. We also are concerned about some people on widow's pensions, of course the people receiving unemployment benefit, which is a gigantic area, and people on sickness benefits and special benefits. There is a number of people in those areas in relation to which we believe clarification is needed. Many people have involved themselves in post-secondary education in an attempt to improve their lifestyles and in an attempt to get to the stage at which they do not have to be dependent upon government payouts. As we know, in our society in the 1980s and moving into the next decade, if one thing can get people to become independent individuals it is success in education. They cannot have that if access is denied. A couple of other areas about which we are concerned are people on disability pensions and allowances and categories of service pensions. It seems to us that there is a very marked tendency in this society at the moment to punish and blame people who are not in full time employment, people who are often called `dole bludgers'. It is very easy for us to suggest that people should work for the dole. As one who has worked for several years of my life as a student in post-secondary education, it seems to me that that is a good option. Is that what we are offering to people who have, on their own initiative, taken the opportunity to engage in post-secondary education? We are now saying to them that we are making it that much more expensive. We are making it that much more expensive at the beginning of the year when all the other expenses have to be met. I go back to the point that I made about people living in country areas who, for post-secondary education, must move to a major urban area, who have to pay relocation expenses, who have to find themselves somewhere to live, who have to pay the travel costs to get there and who then have to meet all the initial expenses that other students have to meet. Those are additional imposts which necessarily will make a very difficult time for people living outside the metropolitan areas even more difficult. As I have said, I have talked with people in post-secondary education and people contemplating post-secondary education. Five thousand young Victorians marched through the streets of Melbourne in September, and I joined them. They were quite clear about how they felt on this issue. I spoke with them. They asked me to bring a message to this Parliament, which I have have done and which I repeat: They will not accept what is happening here. What they see and hear are the protestations of an opposition and the impositions of a government which they cannot see as being just in any way. They know, as the Australian Democrats know, that if this country is to move successfully into the next century it will be only through education and training that we will surmount the difficulties facing us. We will face them together and we will be successful. While we limit access to education we will not achieve the goals that we should all be looking towards. Those young people are saying: `We have had enough. We don't believe that these people have our best interests, or even the best interests of our country, at heart'. It will not be enough for the Government to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is there to cheer when Allan Border avoids the follow-on or indeed for the Opposition's Peter `Madonna' Shack to name drop in speeches and say: `That means we care for young people'. Five thousand young people concerned about access to tertiary education said to me on the steps of Parliament House: `We don't think that is good enough'. As the polls are showing both the Opposition and the Government it is not good enough. Today has not been a good day for the people who care about the future of Australia. The Australian Financial Review actually identified the grand coalition and we are seeing the grand coalition in action today, 2 December 1986. The grand coalition supports Australia being part of the world nuclear global strategy; the grand coalition supports Australia's decision that if we are to have an educated future, individuals will pay for it or they will not have it. This is absolutely not good enough and this is what the young people are saying to both the Government and the Opposition. It will take more than window dressing for the Government and the Opposition to win back the votes of these young people. I am extraordinarily heartened by the fact that the young people are not opting out. They are saying: `We can see when people stand by their principles and say what should happen in the best interests of the future of Australia'. The Government's attitude is a very penny-pinching sort of attitude. I feel extraordinarily sorry for the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) if indeed she was rolled in Cabinet. I can think of better places for that sort of action to occur and I can think of better causes for which it might occur. It is not in the interests of the future of Australia for this sort of penny pinching to go on and for the Government to have provided the thin end of the wedge for the alternative government should it ever come into office. It will make it just that much easier for it to move on this matter on which it says it does not have a policy, although we all know that underneath it does. It really wants all students to pay for the education they get. I am very glad that some of us here stand by what we believe in and do not just put up protestations and join the grand coalition in imposing an extra $250 on students at the beginning of the year when they can least afford it. It is iniquitous most of all for part time and external students who in fact will have a double, triple or quadruple whammy, depending on how long it takes them to do their course. I stand here in support of access and participation in education. I thought that was what the Government stood for. That is what a lot of students and prospective students thought the Government stood for. I am certainly very disappointed that the Opposition, for all its protestations, will not support the very sensible amendments which we propose to move at the Committee stage. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.50) —We have had quite an interesting debate tonight on the legislation before the Senate which will require higher education institutions to take an administration charge of $250 from some categories of students. It was quite an extraordinary debate because the Opposition parties made speeches, obviously well prepared or well lifted from various propaganda material that has been abroad in the community, which did not pertain to the actual decisions in the legislation before us. We had speeches which the poor Australian who might have been listening tonight might have thought meant that the Australian Government was embarking upon a policy of charging full fees to all tertiary students. We had speeches that suggested that there were not exemptions for disadvantaged groups and that there was no recognition-- Senator Peter Baume —No one said that. Senator RYAN —Senator Peter Baume, by way of interjection, now seeks to regurgitate some of his previous ineffectual comments. He made great play of the fact that in 1981, when his crowd were in government, they tried to impose fees on post-, second and higher degree students and that we-in fact I-led the charge against this. He neglected to point out to the hapless listeners that the level of charge that they were seeking to apply back in 1981 was in the vicinity of $2,000, which is a very different kettle of fish from the $250 administration charge which this legislation will impose on some categories of students. Senator Peter Baume got upon his high horse and pretended that what the legislation was about was full tuition fees-the kind of thing that his colleague Peter Shack would certainly support and that he himself would probably be forced to support if ever the unfortunate event of a coalition government befell the Australian people. He made his speech accordingly, as if we were going to demand $12,000 or $14,000 from all tertiary students, and he ignored the realities of the legislation. Senator Townley, in a quite unexpected defence of policies such as equity and participation, made a speech that was quite interesting to me since I was very familiar with its contents. Its contents happened to be the CALP submission to our Caucus education committee-that is, the very detailed and involved submission that the Council of Australian Labor Party students made to us voicing their complaints about the $250 charge to be imposed on some categories of students. Senator Townley, in a customary fashion I suppose, decided that someone else could do his work for him and he actually got up and made their speech for them. I suppose CALP might or might not be grateful that Senator Townley, Liberal Tasmania, repeated that speech. I suppose it is a matter of record that for the first time since I have been in this place-I have been here for a very long time-we have actually had a Liberal senator making a speech on behalf of ALP students. I am sure that they will deal with Senator Townley accordingly. But, really and truly, the prize for grandstanding and irrelevance must go to the Australian Democrats, and I suppose that is not unusual. I am afraid that Senator Peter Baume has been outclassed in the categories of grandstanding and irrelevance not only by Senator Macklin but also by our novice Australian Democrat, Senator Powell, who got up and ranted and raved and carried on about women and participation and access. No doubt she was quoting from my speeches, which has also become a very popular activity in the Senate. She carried on and made the most outrageous and silly claims about the effects of this charge. Let us get back to reality. This legislation requires some categories of students to pay $250 towards the cost of their higher education places. I say `some categories of students' because there is an extensive list of categories of students who will not be affected by the charge. Any student, for example, who is eligible for any education allowance-now called Austudy-will not pay the charge out of his or her own pocket. In case people think that it is a very strict family means testing on Austudy, I remind them that if they are in the circumstance of having two students in higher education, which even some of us in this place do or have in the past, the cutoff point for receipt of some degree of Austudy is a salary in the vicinity of $48,000. Despite Senator Powell's efforts at grandstanding, I do not think even she would say that a family income of $48,000 a year was actually in dire poverty. In fact, as the Australian Democrats have recently discovered poverty, especially poverty amongst women, they probably know that poverty actually is a lot less than $48,000 annually. Yet families with two students in higher education who have a family income of up to $48,000 will not be affected by the charge because their student children will receive a payment through Austudy-not a large payment-and therefore will also receive the $250 to pay the charge. So when we get all this ranting and raving about the most disadvantaged being hit, let us be realistic. Students from poor families will not be affected by this charge. In fact, students from middle class families will not be affected by the charge if a number of children in the family are in education. I think that needs to go on the record. Similarly, we heard a great deal about women from Senator Powell, who was trying to compete with Senator Peter Baume for the grandstanding award of the year. The honourable senator mentioned women who were supporting parents beneficiaries. Supporting parents beneficiaries are exempted from the charge. They will not be required at any point to pay the charge if they are in higher education. If they are in higher education they are probably there because they have benefited from a whole lot of other equity programs which have been funded under this Government. A great deal of concern was expressed about part time and external students. Of course, there is a legitimate concern in this area, and it is a concern that I and the Government acknowledge and will monitor. However let me say a couple of things about part time and external students before we all faint or cut our wrists at the horror that some of them might be required to pay $250 towards their $8,000 or $10,000 place in higher education. I think it is time the Democrats listened to the odd fact. I know that facts are very confusing and distressing things for the Democrats to have to deal with, but I ask them to listen to this: How many enrolled part time male students do the Democrats think are not in paid employment? Less than 5 per cent are not in employment. I would like Senator Powell and Senator Macklin, and even Senator Peter Baume, if he is competing with the Australian Democrats, to explain to me why there is an inequity in requiring people such as public servants, school teachers and the like who are in employment and who do part time studies-we encourage and endorse that-to pay $250 towards the cost of their higher education. I think Senator Peter Baume would find great difficulty in saying that there is an inequity in that. Senator Peter Baume —They are trying to pay their rent and buy food. Senator RYAN —If people are in employment, let us say, they are better off than people who are not in employment. Surely agreement can be reached in the Senate on that simple statement. Only about 5 per cent of male part time students are not in paid employment. Senator Macklin —What about female? Senator RYAN —The situation is different for female students. Of course, Senator Macklin, teaching his grandmother to suck eggs, has pointed out that the situation for female students is different. Indeed it is. Of female part time students, 23 per cent are not in paid employment. So we do have to consider their circumstances. Some proportion of that 23 per cent will be on the supporting parents benefit and they will be exempted. Some others-we do not know the number yet-will have spouses who are medium or high income earners. Everyone who has spent any time on a campus knows that that is the case. Senator Powell —And you know they won't give them the money. Senator RYAN —I suppose it is up to the Government to leap into the marriage situation and force rich husbands to hand over $250 to their spouses. I suppose that is a proper course of action that governments should take! Of course, the Democrats would say that it is. Senator Peter Baume —What are the enrolment figures for next year? Senator RYAN —Senator Peter Baume has made a more rational interjection and said: `Let us look at the enrolment figures next year'. Indeed, we are going to do that. We have already decided to fund a very comprehensive national research project which will be carried out at Flinders University whereby we will examine the effect of the charge on part time and external students in particular, and on other categories of students. There are all kinds of predictions about what the effects will be. I predict that the effects will be slighter than the kinds of claims being made by Senator Powell, the born-again concerned person about women in higher education. In any event, we will have data available to us. That data will be monitored carefully by a committee, established by me, consisting of representatives of higher education, of students themselves-and the students are very happy to participate in this-and our Caucus education committee. So we will look at the effects generally, but particularly on the 5 per cent of male part time students who actually do not earn a wage and the 23 per cent of female students who do not earn a wage, and we will see whether there is any loss in equity or participation. But until we do, all of these melodramatic claims that are being made here tonight I think really should be regarded as just that. Other things need to be said too. There is the fact that we have now provided $11m to institutions throughout Australia in loan funds-- Senator Powell —It will not be enough, according to the Tertiary Education Commission. Senator RYAN —Senator Powell has just discovered the existence of the Tertiary Education Commission. I recommend to her that she pay a little more attention to what the Commission has said and to the extent to which the Tertiary Education Commission has welcomed the greatly increased funding of higher education from our Government, the creation of 38,000 new higher education places, the extent to which we have supported equity programs, the extent to which we have supported increases in special centres for research and teaching and so forth. If Senator Powell wants to discover what the Tertiary Education Commission thinks about our Government's policy, I recommend to her a closer study, because she will find that the reports of the Tertiary Education Commission have documented, in a very thorough way, the dramatic improvements in higher education in terms of access and participation and in terms of quality and outcomes that have been characteristic of our period of government. We do have loan funds available for those students who may, I and the Government admit, fall through the various stools of exempt categories, and those funds will be available, we hope-and we have asked institutions to ensure this-in a very flexible fashion. Similarly, we have asked, in a formal way, the institutions to be flexible and reasonable in their application of the charge. For example, there is no need to require the charge from students who have already established their eligibility for Austudy before they receive the $250 from us in their first Austudy cheque. Similarly, there ought to be sensitivity to the needs of rural students who have had to come into cities or regional centres to study and who have to face boarding costs and the like. We have asked the institutions to be specially sensitive to the needs of those students. Again, we will have the co-operation of students in monitoring the performance of institutions in regard to their administration of those funds and their observance of the policy guidelines laid down by the Government. A number of things have been said about the charge, and I suppose the thing that our opponents like to say most, because they regard it as the most politically damaging, is that it is the thin end of the wedge and it is the beginning of tuition fees. It clearly is not. As every honourable senator in this place knows, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Acts prohibit the charging of tuition fees and those Acts which have passed through this place recently have not lifted that prohibition. So technically and legally it is still the case that tuition fees are not charged and will not be charged. The administration charge was presented by some of our more naive, or professedly naive, senators as being the first compulsory charge levied on any higher education student since 1974-again clearly wildly wrong. As we all know, every institution in Australia has levied compulsory charges of various characters to do with union fees, sports union fees and so on not only since 1974 but, I think, since time immemorial-certainly since my time as an undergraduate; and there are probably people in this place who were undergraduates even earlier than I was. The fact is that institutions have always levied compulsory charges for services. Students were not able to participate in the academic life of the institutions without paying those charges, and yet while those charges were being levied, and certainly between 1974 and 1985, it was never said that we did not have an open and accessible higher education system. The addition of $250, paid not by all students but by better off students, does not alter that fact. If we are talking about thin ends of wedges and the like, I would remind the Democrats, because I suppose they intend to persist with their gratuitous and useless amendments, that this legislation applies only for next year, so talk about sunset clauses and the like is quite gratuitous. I also remind them that we have indicated formally that when making triennial funding arrangements for the next triennium, 1988 to 1990, which we will bring in next year, we will again require institutions to charge $250, plus cost indexation, for some categories of students and that will be all. The thin end of the wedge argument, though attractive to our opponents, is a dead end rather than a thin end and will have no life after next year's Budget. I remind honourable senators of the facts of higher education funding. Funding has been greatly increased by our Government, in contrast to the decline it experienced during the seven years of the Fraser Government. There have been 38,000 new higher education places, greatly increased capital grants, research centres, equity programs and so forth. I remind members of the Australian public who may be listening to this debate tonight that the cost of a higher education place is probably at its lowest about $6,000 a year, and once we get into very expensive areas such as medicine, from which Senator Peter Baume benefited, or agricultural science, we are up to perhaps $18,000 a year depending on the capital backlog in the institution. Every higher education student has at least $6,000 of government revenue spent on him or her, and probably in many cases double or even triple that sum. We are maintaining essentially a free tuition higher education system, a genuinely public higher education system where admission is on the basis of merit, and one which is performing well and will perform better as a result of our policies. The fact that because of budgetary stringency the Government has had to ask some categories of better off students to make a mere $250 contribution to the administration costs of that tremendous benefit which they receive should not have provoked the fairly outlandish claims and accusations that we have had to endure this evening. I remind Liberal critics of this Bill that the Liberal Party has on several occasions demonstrated that its policy is full tuition fees. The Australian Democrats have demonstrated again this week, with a further split in their ranks, that they will never ever be in a situation to determine any policies, education or otherwise, and students should not be misled by their libertarian and manipulative response to any suggestion that comes their way. I commend the Bills. I understand that there will not be opposition from the coalition parties. The Democrats wish to move some amendments, which of course the Government will not accept. Question put: That the Bills be now read a second time. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland Ayes ... 56 Noes ... 6 Majority ... 50 AYES Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McClelland, Douglas Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. McIntosh, G. D. Carrick, Sir John Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Newman, J. M. Coleman, R. N. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, Robert Cook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller) Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Elstob, R. C. Short, J. R. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Townley, M. Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. NOES Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.17) —To the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, I move: (1) Page 2, paragraph 3 (c), paragraph (d) of the proposed new definition of `relevant enrolment', lines 37 and 38, leave out `by the Minister for the purposes of this paragraph by notice in writing published in the Gazette'', insert ``in the regulations as a class of persons for the purposes of this paragraph'. I have a number of questions for the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) concerning this amendment. First, as the Bill stands the Minister would be able to exempt categories of people in receipt of Commonwealth benefits or allowances simply by notice in writing published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills notes that this may be considered to subject the exercise of legislative power insufficiently to parliamentary scrutiny. It says: Notices specifying classes of persons to be excluded under paragraph (d) are not subject to tabling and disallowance as they would be, for example, if the Minister were required to specify the classes of people excluded in regulations. Accordingly, the Australian Democrats move this amendment. Over the last few months it has become almost accepted that the Government will approve such amendments. Luckily, such provisions now appear less and less in the various Bills that come before us. This matter has been raised quite a number of times in the past by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and I believe it should be pushed fairly heavily in the Committee stage. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has been effective in tightening up the drafting of Bills. I hope that the Government is amenable to proceeding with this matter by regulation rather than by gazettal, the method chosen. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.20) —The Australian Democrats' proposal is not acceptable to the Government as it would create absolute chaos. It seems to be the intention of the Democrats these days to make the business of the Parliament as chaotic as possible. We certainly do not accept this amendment. If there were to be a provision for disallowance the disallowance procedure could take up to 45 sitting days. That period could cover two or possibly three sessions and, of course, if the disallowance motion were successful it would result in different treatment for the same category of students in the same year; that is, some students would pay, some students would not pay and so on because of timing problems. The gazettal procedure provides certainty for students and institutions. The Government really does not find anything to recommend the Democrats' amendment and we will not accept it. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.21) —I think this is unfortunate. The debate has been conducted in a reasonable way today. I do not know what the Minister had for dinner but I think it would be useful for this debate, which deals with an important issue, to be conducted in a reasonable way. The issue here is certainly one which governments of all persuasions have always relied on as being administratively difficult. We know that it is administratively difficult. That is the argument put forward by bureaucrats all the time; we all learnt that from viewing the program Yes Minister. The point is not whether it is administratively difficult but whether it is useful in terms of the legislative power of the Parliament actually to scrutinise such items. The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has pointed to this in innumerable pieces of legislation. As I have said, it has become less of a feature of drafting now and I believe that it is a feature which ought not to appear in pieces of legislation unless there is a specific reason why it needs to be done that way. The Minister has simply argued in terms of the time that a disallowance procedure might take. That is certainly true but it is also true of every amendment the Government has accepted to date. In my memory, in the last few weeks the Government has accepted this sort of amendment on three or four occasions. I cannot see why it is any more difficult in this instance. I would have thought that, in terms of this amendment, it is far less difficult. (Quorum formed) I was making the point that the length of time involved would have made acceptance of this amendment less difficult because of the problems the Minister had raised. After all, these charges are imposed once, at most twice, a year when fees are due. I would have thought that it was well within the capacity of the Government to make these types of decisions and have them put down at the appropriate time throughout the year. Unlike a lot of other Bills which work continuously, this legislation only works at highly specified times. I would have thought that the Government easily had the capacity, if we are looking at another exemption, to announce that at the appropriate time, bearing in mind the types of delays that the Minister thinks might arise as a result of any disallowance motion. It is interesting that the Minister raised the question of the disallowance motion. If the items which are to be gazetted could very well attract a disallowance motion I would have thought that there was even more reason for it to be in regulations. By and large, I would have thought that it was basically uncontroversial in this area. We are raising the point that has been raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I must admit that the Minister's reply has got me thinking that there may, in fact, be other possibilities. At the moment I cannot think of any. I wonder whether the Minister will find that the arguments she has suggested are not really pertinent to the type of operation in this Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.26) —I rise to ask a question of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). Am I not correct, in reading the clause under consideration and reading the amendment, that sub-paragraph (d), to which the amendment refers, is part of an exempting clause which has the effect of relieving certain students of the duty of paying this particular charge? If that is the case, can the Minister tell us and, if it is, can Senator Macklin then tell us why it is necessary to have a disallowance power? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.27) —Senator Peter Baume is precisely right in his analysis of the effect of the amendment and its application. It applies to a part of the Bill which allows for exemptions. Therefore, if the disallowance motion rather than the regulation procedure were used it would be used only to disallow an exemption. That is, our Government may have decided to exempt, as we have done, supporting parents or invalid pensioners. The only practical outcome of the procedure that Senator Macklin is advocating is that the Senate could remove the exemption. So the student who enrolled believing that he had an exemption because he was an invalid, or for some other reason, would suddenly find that he did not have an exemption. This is why I made the point, which Senator Macklin did not seem to notice, that one of the main reasons for our rejecting this proposal is that it could create uncertainty among students and unequal treatment as between students whose exemption was maintained and students whose exemption was removed. I thank Senator Peter Baume for his accurate comment on the proposal. Amendment negatived. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.28) —Further to this clause, I wonder whether the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) could inform the Committee on the various beneficiaries. There has been a statement from the Minister about the various exclusions which the Government is proposing to gazette. I imagine that the Government has, at this late date in December, finalised its list. Is the Minister able to tell us, for example, with regard to items that come under the Department of Veterans' Affairs, whether the veterans' children's education scheme is to be exempt? That is the scheme for children of veterans who have died in wars or children of servicemen who are either blind or totally and permanently incapacitated. What effect will it have on a person in receipt of a service or disability pension, particularly as a service pension can be received by females at the age of 55? It may very well be that a person in that situation will still have dependent children. That person may wish to try to upgrade his or her qualifications in order to be able to support children at a later stage. I was wondering whether those two matters in particular had been dealt with. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.30) —Student dependants of veteran pensioners or of blind pensioners, or other students in that category, will be in the same position as Austudy students. They will be recompensed. The treatment of disability pensioners who have had dual eligibility and who wish to undertake higher education studies is currently a matter for discussion between the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). We do not yet have an outcome with regard to that category. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.31) —I thank the Minister for that information. I was wondering when an outcome for that last category might be available. It is getting into December and decisions on tertiary study are often made much earlier than this. Can the Minister give an explanation, because I have not yet seen a full explanation, of why people on unemployment benefits specifically are being excluded? It seems to be very odd that in many cases persons might be excluded if unemployed but could very well be included if they become employed. I would have thought that the Government would be seeking in every way possible-I remember some recent announcements to this effect-to make sure that young people who are already disadvantaged by the economic circumstances are assisted. I am thinking in particular of people on unemployment benefits who are undertaking part time studies. A person on unemployment benefits has to be available for employment but could very well undertake part time studies. Yet that person might find this an extremely onerous burden, considering the low level of unemployment benefits, in terms of the costs a student who is undertaking even part time studies would be forced to bear. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.32) —The first part of Senator Macklin's question concerned when I can expect an outcome from the discussions between the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) on the treatment of disability pensioners. (Quorum formed) I was just explaining that we expect an outcome shortly on the discussions concerning disability pensioners. The other matter that was raised by Senator Macklin was the requirement for unemployed persons pursuing part time studies to pay the charge. That is the provision. I remind Senator Macklin that unemployed people have a number of options provided by the Government for them to undertake study and training to improve their employability. Technical and further education courses, for example, all of which are vocationally oriented and in many cases specifically designed to meet labour market shortages, are available to unemployed people who wish to undertake that kind of training. It is not the case that the unemployed person who wishes to get some market skills has no option other than to undertake higher education. The vast majority undertake TAFE courses and receive allowances of various kinds-with a great deal of success, I must say. Most of those courses have improved the employability of unemployed persons. However, if an unemployed person chooses to enter higher education, while recognising his responsibility to be available on a daily basis to undertake employment, he is in a different position. However, we will be monitoring such unemployed persons carefully in the research project and should we find that the charge is a serious obstacle to the improvement of their employment skills we may reconsider its application to them. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.35) —I move the following amendment to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986: (2) Page 6, clause 4, proposed new sub-sections 4d (4) and (5), lines 9 to 22, leave out the sub-sections, insert the following new sub-sections: `` `(4) The amount of charge for each relevant enrolment in respect of the year 1987 is- (a) in the case of the enrolment of a person at a relevant institution to undertake a course, being a course which the Commission determines to be such as reasonably to require the attention of the person on a full-time basis-$250; or (b) in any other case-$125. `(5) The amount of charge for each relevant enrolment in respect of a year to which this section applies is- (a) in the case of the enrolment of a person at a relevant institution to undertake a course, being a course which the Commission determines to be such as reasonably to require the attention of the person on a full-time basis-subject to paragraph (c), the amount ascertained by multiplying by the factor calculated under sub-section (6) in relation to that year- (i) in a case to which sub-paragraph (ii) does not apply-$250; or (ii) if, by virtue of another application of this section, an amount other than $250 was the amount of charge for each relevant enrolment to which this paragraph applies in respect of the preceding year-that other amount; (b) in any other case-subject to paragraph (c), the amount ascertained by multiplying by the factor calculated under sub-section (6) in relation to that year- (i) in a case to which sub-paragraph (ii) does not apply-$125; or (ii) if, by virtue of another application of this section, an amount other than $125 was the amount of charge for each relevant enrolment to which this paragraph applies in respect of the preceding year-that other amount; or (c) if an amount calculated under paragraph (a) or (b) includes a number of cents-the amount so calculated disregarding the cents.''. The amendment is to page 6, clause 4, and seeks to insert new sub-sections 4d (4) and (5) to deal quite specifically with the application of the charge to part time and external students. The application of the same charge to part time and external students is inequitable. If the charge is to be imposed, it ought to be dealt with in the same way institutions currently deal with items such as the student charge; that is, there should be a halving of the fee for part time and external students. This is an administratively simple way of dealing with the issue. It does not necessarily solve all of the problems that arise but at least it would significantly alleviate them. Because of the average length of time a part time student takes to complete a course he would pay roughly the same administrative fee as a full time student. So the impost would work out to be equitable for students who for one reason or another carry out their study on a part time basis. The Government has maintained that this is not the case because many part time students may-I acknowledge it-work or have an employed spouse. At no stage in the debate have I suggested-indeed I have not heard such suggestions-that that is relevant to what we are talking about. In terms of what the Minister was saying we are seeking equity in terms of the way students undertake their study courses. There is a whole range of reasons as to why people have to undertake their studies part time. They may do so because of family circumstances. Senator Powell raised the issue of single mothers who are seeking to upgrade their qualifications to be able to provide additional benefits for their families. In doing so they are already financially stretched. The imposition of a $250 administration fee on those people could easily be as onerous for them as it could be for full time students. Full time students are, on average, younger. Most of their recurrent costs are picked up by their parents. So exactly the same argument may apply to those on full time study as to those on part time study in terms of their access to other resources. But it is not a matter of their access to other resources; it is a matter of equity for the individual. The total number of students in the bracket we are dealing with differs significantly from State to State and from region to region and is about 45 per cent of total student enrolment-a significant amount. It is a distinction which the institutions have sought to make on equity grounds. It is a distinction which the student unions, the sport unions and the various CAEs and universities have made in terms of the use of facilities. The area of administrative costs is one that the Minister has relied on heavily, rejecting the notion that there is a fee. We have had responses from a number of institutions and they are in total agreement that the administration cost for a part time student is less than it is for a full time student. I believe the Minister has had access to similar types of proposals and information coming from, say, the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee. Indeed one could find under each of those headings a significant reason why one should seek to ameliorate this charge on those part time and external students, at least by reducing it to half, so that by the end of the full course of study they are paying roughly the same amount as full time students. Most of the recent studies that have been done, including the most recent study, the review that I referred to previously into the efficiency and effectiveness of higher education, have pointed quite directly to the significantly lower socio-economic standing, on average, of students who are undertaking studies other than as full time students. Anybody who has been involved in tertiary education, be it as a student or as someone on the other side of the desk, knows full well that that is also the case on the ground, that many pressures force people out of being able to afford the cost of a full time course. As honourable senators know, the major costs to a student taking a full time course are his living expenses and not actually any of these additional fees. The Minister mentioned in her response to the second reading debate that the Government is concerned about this, but I ask her: How concerned is the Government about this? Why can it not institute this now and see whether this is an equitable operation? Why follow the other course in terms of imposing the full amount when the Government is already aware of so many anomalies which will arise in this circumstance? Why not, in the introduction of this amount, seek to set it at the lower level so that those students will not be disadvantaged? If at a later stage the Minister finds that they are not disadvantaged, surely the amount could be raised. It seems to me to be odd that we should put on an impost then have an inquiry, find out that the impost is onerous and then lift it. I would have thought that the other way of working up to it might have been more equitable and more reasonable. (Quorum formed) Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(9.44) —The Australian Democrats' proposal is not acceptable to the Government. In the first instance, it would mean a loss of revenue of $20m and it would be a loss that we would be sustaining with no evidence for the points of view that Senator Macklin has put forward. I have already reminded honourable senators that the vast majority of part time and external students are in employment and earning wages, and that as yet we have no evidence that the requirement to pay $250 will present any real obstacle to them. It is also the case that the charge is regarded by us as a proportion of the administrative costs that an institution incurs in administering education services to students. Those services must be rendered every year for which the student is enrolled. If an external student takes nine years to complete his or her degree, that student has access to the administration of the institution for nine years-a longer period than a student who completes a degree in three or four years. There is an element of rational assessment in the provision as it stands. Senator Macklin pointed out that in the view of institutions, generally speaking, the costs of administration for full time students is greater than those for part time students but, of course, the $250 bears no relationship to the full cost in any event. It is merely a contribution to a cost which would be greatly in excess of $250 for administration, be it for a part time or a full time student. As yet we have no evidence that the minority of students who are not in paid employment will find the $250 fee an obstacle or will not be able to borrow it from the loan funds. As I said, the research project that we are funding will look specifically at the effect on the participation of part time and external students, and the Government will examine the results of that at that stage. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.46) —In the summary of the Minister for Education at the second reading stage she dismissed a particular group of people affected by this part time and external student impost. I think it is a dismissal that was made too lightly. It is not just to dismiss married women whose spouses are in employment. Studies relating to the family allowance have shown clearly that access to the family income is quite limited for a very large number of women in this category. At this point I suggest to the Minister that the review to which she has referred will be particularly important to this group of women. We should not assume-I am sure the Minister does not-that, because a spouse is in paid employment, these people necessarily have access to the funds which, in my view and, I expect, in the Minister's view, are properly the property of the whole family. It is not the case in reality. This is another group for which I am very concerned. If the amendment which the Australian Democrats have moved were to be passed, this would be another significant group of people which would benefit. In the event, it looks as though the best they can expect is the review to which the Minister has referred. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Macklin's amendment) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N. Aulich, T. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Newman, J. M. Coleman, R. N. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Elstob, R. C. Short, J. R. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Townley, M. Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.56) —With regard to the assistance that will be provided to students, to which the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) made reference in her summing up at the second reading stage, I refer her in particular to the Press release she issued on 30 November headed `Commonwealth gives further $4.5m for needy students'. The first paragraph reads: The Commonwealth Government is to provide a further $4.5 million to tertiary institutions for low interest loans and grants to students with financial difficulties, making a total of over $11 million for the period 1985-87. That is a rather fascinating Press release in many ways. Senator Peter Baume referred back to 1981 in his speech. I would not want to go back quite that far, but certainly the Minister will remember a discussion she led in this chamber with regard to the removal of amounts of money from colleges and institutions. At that time the Minister said quite clearly that that amount of money would be transferred across to the emergency loans scheme in the triennium that was coming up. That was in the 1984 Budget. It was allocated in the 1985 and 1986 Budgets. The amount of money mentioned in the 1984 Budget was $10m, which on adjusted terms is now $11m. So there is certainly no further $4.5m. That amount of money had already been taken from the institutions and is now being put into the loans and grants as per that decision in the 1984 Budget. I think it is somewhat misleading to talk about a further $4.5m, even given the propensity of people who write Press releases to use colourful phrases. Indeed, the media reported it directly, as presumably the person who wrote the Press release intended it-that is, that additional moneys had been provided over and above the amounts provided in the Budget. That is presumably what the person who wrote it was looking for. I think it is a pity that those types of misrepresentations are put about, particularly in this very important area. It makes it very difficult for institutions which are expecting additional moneys over and above the moneys previously allocated in the Budget. They are now looking at possibly another $4.5m being shared out. I have had a number of calls about this and I have tried to explain what the circumstances are. I seek confirmation from the Minister that, indeed, that $4.5m is part of the $10m, now $11m, that the Minister had taken away from the colleges to re-allocate for emergency loans, as announced in the 1984 Budget. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.00) —Senator Macklin is right and he is wrong at the same time. He is right in saying that there was a commitment in 1984 that over the triennium there would be a redistribution of funds which had been paid on a per capita non-means-tested basis to all institutions to make loans-(Quorum formed) The decision was made in 1984 to redistribute those funds to an emergency loans scheme, but the funds were phased out on a yearly basis for the triennium. So Senator Macklin is wrong in suggesting that no new funds are available to the institutions. In fact, $4 1/2m has just been formally allocated to them to bring the total amount over the triennial period to $11m. Nothing that I have ever said has suggested that there would be any more than a global figure of $11m for this purpose. But the extra $4.5m, or whatever it is, for the 1987 allocation has just been made available to the institutions. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.02) —I remind the Minister that in the Hansard of 8 October 1985 she is reported as saying: That scheme was inequitable and discriminatory. She was referring to the colleges scheme. To continue: We have changed it; we have redistributed the funds available under that scheme on a phased basis. Senator Teague will be interested to know that $10m has been allocated over the triennium for emergency loans schemes, which will operate on every higher education campus in Australia, which will operate under guidelines which require student participation... The amount of money mentioned there is identical in adjusted terms. The Minister talked about a phasing out operation. Can she tell me what amount of money is going to the colleges on a phased out basis in the 1986 Budget? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.03) —There will be no allocation in 1987. The $4.5m is being allocated in 1986. It is the completion of the triennial phasing out of one program into another program. It is a procedure which I have described and which Senator Macklin has just quoted. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.03) —Am I correct in assuming from what the Minister has said that there is not an extra or further $4.5m? Is it the same $4.5m that has been referred to all the way along? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.04) —I do not know how often I have to repeat myself. I have made it clear that a global amount of $11m has now gone to institutions during the course of the triennium. The final part of that $11m-the $4.5m-has just been paid to the institutions. Therefore, they have $4.5m that they did not have a couple of months ago. (Quorum formed) Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.05) —I would like to use the opportunity given to us by Senator Macklin's reference to emergency loans just to place on record some of the difficulties which some universities will face. I speak with a little diffidence. I am a member of the finance committee of a university and we have discussed in the last few weeks how we will try to cope with the matter of loans for students, whose numbers we do not know, who may have difficulty meeting this charge. If the charge is $250 and if we think we have $60,000 available, that gives us a total of 240 loans only which we can make for a body of several thousand newly enrolling, and maybe re-enrolling, students. If that money is to be available one year later-and the problem will recur annually-it is necessary that it be repaid during the year, so the rate of repayment will have to be relatively rapid. In addition to that, a university is not set up as a lending and collecting body, and it makes sense, therefore, to look at procedures such as going to the university credit union and working through it, as has been done, by the way, for the emergency loans up until now. It looks as if the university may then have to pay a fee to the credit union for each loan that is taken out. I ask the Minister whether she is aware of some of the very considerable administrative difficulties which universities will face in actually putting this in place, and, secondly, of the very real fear-it can only be a fear at this stage, because we do not really know-that the quantum of money available may not be adequate to meet the calls upon us. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.08) —Obviously, I am aware of the kinds of concerns that Senator Peter Baume has just raised, because people involved with other institutions have raised them with me. But I think we must bear in mind that the institutions are getting to keep 10 per cent of every $250 that they levy, so they are considerably better off and that should assist them to meet administrative costs. Whether they are geared up to lend or not really varies very much. Many of the institutions did collect their own union dues and things of that kind, so they are geared up. Others used student unions to do that, so they are not geared up. So it is a variable picture. There are some administrative difficulties involved with this measure but, overall, we are talking about a charge which a large number of students will not be affected by and which many students will not have any difficulty meeting. The numbers who will have difficulty are quite small, and I believe that institutions will have the infrastructure to deal with them. I am not saying that there will not be any difficulties in sorting the matter out, but I believe that the resources are there. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment. Adoption of Report Motion (by Senator Ryan) proposed: That the report of the Committee be adopted. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.09) —I move: At the end of the motion, add: ``, and the provisions of the Bills be referred to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts for report before 1 June 1987''. It might not be necessary to go to a division on this, but our reasons for moving this amendment relate to what I said at the second reading stage: An inquiry into student finances and the operation of student charges has been long overdue. I move the amendment also in anticipation of reports that the Opposition supported such a reference. Senator Peter Baume may be able to enlighten me on that, because I am unaware of the Opposition's current attitude on this. Senator Peter Baume —No, we do not support it. Senator MACKLIN —That is a pity, but due to the time factor we shall not insist on a division. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Ryan) read a third time. Debate resumed from 11 November, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.13) —The purpose of the Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill is to cut off government assistance to first home buyers as from 31 December 1986 and thus save the Government about $150,000 this financial year. This is how the young, particularly the single income families, see assistance from this Government. I give notice that I shall be moving the amendment standing in my name, which reads: At the end of the motion, add `, but the Senate condemns the Government for pursuing disastrous economic and taxation policies which have- (a) created the current housing crisis; (b) resulted in high levels of interest rates; (c) reduced the number of dwelling commencements; (d) reduced the availability, and increased the cost, of rental properties; and (e) increased the public housing waiting lists'. This government measure goes along with the highest home interest rates Australia has ever seen-rates that are artificially propped up by the Government to save itself from disgrace because of the true value of our dollar. Interest rates in Australia are some 10 per cent higher than in virtually every other developed nation, with rates at 17.5 per cent. Added to that we have rising inflation, the highest taxing government in the history of Australia and a falling standard of living. That is the scenario that the young people of Australia are facing as they move into housing. So many of those are also in the net of the ridiculous fringe benefits tax, be it for a car, a phone, health cover or whatever. The truth is that people in the 25- to 40-year age group find themselves in real trouble if they are trying to raise children, participate in the community and buy an ordinary, modest home. I asked a question recently on mortgage arrears as notified to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. In answer to question on notice No. 1261 of 19 August, I was told that between January and June 1986 insured borrowers in arrears and notified by the lenders to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation rose by 70 per cent in the first six months of this year, from a total of 1,027 to 1,744. That is one of the results of the Government's housing policies. This time last year much was being said about the fact that new houses were being built at the rate of about 150,000 a year. Then the Indicative Planning Council forecast that the rate might drop to about 135,000 this year. Subsequently that forecast rate has come down to 130,000, then 122,000, and now it is about 115,000. I doubt very much whether it will reach even that level. The waiting lists for government housing have grown from 109,800 in December 1982 to 155,753 in 1986-that is a rise of 41.8 per cent-because of the number of people who can no longer afford even to contemplate buying a house of their own. As well, in my own State home loan repayments rose 36 per cent between June 1985 and June 1986, while wages rose 5.8 per cent. I ask honourable senators: Is this the Hawke-Keating housing policy in action? All I can say is yes, it is. In March 1983 interest rates were 12 1/2 per cent and it is now impossible for the average home owner to get a housing loan at less than 17 1/2 per cent on an overall mortgage or a mixed mortgage. What is the Government going to do about it? That is what all these young people wish to know. Perhaps the Government will tell us tonight. Will interest rates go up or down? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) says they are going down; the Treasurer (Mr Keating) says they are not. In the Senate last week Senator Button agreed with both of them. How long will we be able to play this game of supporting the dollar and what will happen when the support ceases? How will government housing meet the needs of the people who are no longer able to buy their own houses? Does the Government really understand what its policies on the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and negative gearing have done to rental housing? Does it know what heights rents have reached as a result of there now being no vacancies in the private sector? Of all this Government's doctrinaire messes, its actions in the housing area must rank on top. I hope that as a result it gets its just desserts. All I ask is that when the next election comes, the Government at least asks the home owners of Australia to judge it on its record. I just hope that they do. The Opposition does not seek to delay this legislation as it is a tidy up measure. I move: At the end of the motion, add `, but the Senate condemns the government for pursuing disastrous economic and taxation policies which have- (a) created the current housing crisis; (b) resulted in high levels of interest rates; (c) reduced the number of dwelling commencements; (d) reduced the availability, and increased the cost, of rental properties; and (e) increased the public housing waiting lists'. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.17) —The Home Deposit Assistance Amendment Bill 1986 has several purposes, the main one being, as the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) said in his second reading speech, to finalise the receipt of applications under the previous Fraser Government's home deposit assistance scheme. That scheme applied only to homes purchased between March 1982 and the end of September 1983, so it is effectively a scheme which has no particular relevance to people these days. Indeed as the Minister indicated, again in his second reading speech, applications had dwindled to something like four a week and the administrative costs of maintaining a section of the Department of Housing and Construction to look at these was quite prohibitive. When the legislation was introduced the Government undertook to wind up the previous scheme and this is what this legislation does. People making applications under the old scheme were allowed a certain amount of time in which to complete those applications, but this Bill now provides that the last day of 1986 will be the last day on which an applicant can make a valid application under that scheme. There is no problem with that as far as the Australian Democrats are concerned. We certainly support the legislation, although I take exception to some of the comments that the Minister made in his second reading speech in another place. He lauded the current Administration for what it is alleged to have done in support of improved housing access, particularly for young people. This has clearly not been the case. This Government has not been much more generous than the previous Administration in making funding for public housing available to the States, in keeping the lid on interest rates or in encouraging people who are in a position to provide private rental to keep those rentals down. The Minister said that this piece of legislation: . . . is one more indication of the priority we- that is, the current Government- give to housing generally. That is in contrast to what has really been happening. For example, this year the current Administration has allowed interest rates for new loans to rise from 13.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent. The Government, with the co-operation of the present Opposition, has forced the private banks to keep existing loans at 12 per cent by buying them off to the tune of something like $125m. The Opposition amendment is not critical of the legislation that is before us but it raises a number of issues that the Opposition asserts are entirely the fault of the present Government. This debate is reminiscent of a debate we had earlier this year which was also led by Senator Archer in which he asserted similar sorts of things. He suggested that this Hawke Government and its economic and taxation policies have created the current housing crisis, resulted in high levels of interest rates, reduced the number of dwelling commencements, reduced the availability and increased the cost of rental properties and increased public housing waiting lists. We challenged such charges back in October of this year when Senator Archer made them. We agree that there is certainly a housing crisis; I do not think anybody will disagree with that. Increasing numbers of people are finding it increasingly difficult to get the size loan they want at the sort of interest rate they are capable of paying on the sort of salary they receive, but such problems have not been caused simply by the current Administration; it is a continuing problem. It has not sprung up overnight. It has not even sprung up under the last two Labor governments. It existed during the previous Fraser regime. Possibly many of the problems have been inherited from that regime and this Government has not been able to solve them-that is assuming that this Government has any real commitment to solving the problems that exist in the housing area. High interest rates are a problem that we all remember from the early 1980s under the Fraser Government when mortgagee sales occurred every day. As interest rates rocketed up, often at the rate of one percentage point a month, this put mortgage repayments well outside the capacity of most people on average weekly earnings. There were petitions, protest marches and meetings at which politicians spoke, organised by people in the so-called mortgage belt-certainly in South Australia-in the early 1980s in an attempt by people who were hard pressed by the constant increase in interest rates to make governments and politicians see some sort of reason. Unfortunately, such activities did not have a great deal of effect and the deregulated interest rate policy that seemed to operate under the Fraser Government continued to allow interest rates to get out of hand and forced many people out of their homes. When that happens such people have to seek accommodation in the private rental market or they go on the ever-increasing waiting lists for public housing. Again, this Administration cannot be held responsible either for the cost of private rental accommodation or for the problems that are facing the public housing sector. It is not much better than the Fraser Government in providing funding for the States to allocate to public housing but it is marginally better. In the debate in October of this year the abolition of negative gearing, the impact of the capital gains tax and so on on the problem of housing in this country and such arguments as the Opposition is putting were well and truly canvassed and fairly well knocked on the head. In November this year, the Australian newspaper raised the issue of problems with home loans after a survey had been conducted throughout Australia by the Real Estate Institute of Australia. That survey indicated that home loans have become more expensive throughout Australia since the Federal Government unveiled its housing assistance package in April. It pointed out then that that was a result of the partial deregulation of the housing loan interest market-a deregulation that was leaning heavily towards that which operated under the previous Fraser Government in the early 1980s. The industry spokesman who was quoted said: . . . high interest rates were a key factor inhibiting housing activity. I would have thought that that would have been obvious to almost anybody. Senator Crichton-Browne —To the average bear. Senator HAINES —As Senator Crichton-Browne, who probably knows, has just said, it would have been obvious to the average bear. According to another article on housing finance, the survey which was conducted jointly by the REIA and the mortgage insurer MGICA Ltd showed that the immediate effect of the partial deregulation on savings banks' home loan interest rates would be to increase the problems that faced people who wanted to borrow even reasonable amounts to buy or to build a home. The survey compared the increases in median weekly family incomes in the June quarter with increases in loan repayments for the same period. It pointed out that, in Victoria, the ratio of average home loan repayments to median weekly family income increased from a little over 20 per cent in the March quarter to a little over 27 per cent for the June quarter-a 7.1 per cent increase for Victorian families compared with increases in a number of other States which were considerably lower. The newspaper report states: . . . the increase in the size of average home loans indicates increased availability of funds to individual home borrowers. The trade-off, however, was costlier home loans with new home borrowers facing much higher average home loan repayments than in the March quarter of 1986. I think it is about time this Government acknowledged that there is a crisis in home ownership and in rental in both the public and private sectors and looked at how other countries cope with this problem. I talked to a group of United Kingdom members of parliament who were in Australia a couple of weeks ago and I raised this matter with them. They were astounded to learn that for many years Australian governments have not allowed, as do the United States Government and the United Kingdom Government, a tax deduction for interest repayments on housing loans. Certainly this Government allows a tax reduction on loans borrowed for business purposes. Essentially, to all intents and purposes, money borrowed to improve a business is borrowed at half the nominal interest rate once the taxpayer subsidy has come into effect. If that applied, as it does in most other Western nations, to the interest payments made on money borrowed for housing loans, not only would we have a better rate of home ownership in this country than we currently have and more dreams of home ownership fulfilled-this is a country in which home ownership is rated very highly-but also we would have a healthier building industry, since this is a particularly labour intensive area, and the additional benefit would be increased employment. Therefore, the Australian Democrats do not support the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion, although we support this piece of legislation since it contains nothing to object to. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.30) —I rise tonight to bring to the notice of the Senate a matter which relates to an ongoing discrimination by the present Federal Government against a particular Australian family. During the Estimates committee hearings and the Appropriation Bills debate, I raised the matter of victimisation of Mr John Clunies-Ross, Sr, by a Minister of the Federal Government who, as part of a campaign to get Mr Clunies-Ross off the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, decreed that Clunies-Ross shipping companies were to be excluded from consideration for Government contracts to ship goods to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I have already outlined the clearly unjustified and discriminatory nature of these ministerial decisions which ultimately contributed to the decline and eventual bankruptcy of the shipping companies of Mr Clunies-Ross. But there is one further comment which I think should be added with regard to the answers that Senator Grimes gave to the questions I asked in the Appropriation debate. I asked what rights to redress Mr Clunies-Ross would have in regard to the ministerial decision to exclude his companies from the tender process. The Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government-perhaps he had little to do with it; if he had something to do with it the situation might have been different-stated that a person excluded from the tendering process can complain to the Ombudsman. That is interesting because I understand that Mr Clunies-Ross and representatives of his former shipping agent did indeed make representations to the Ombudsman regarding the decision to exclude Clunies-Ross companies from the tender process and was met with the response that the Ombudsman was unable to take the matter up as it was a ministerial rather than an administrative decision which was being questioned. Either the Minister or the Ombudsman is incorrect because Mr Clunies-Ross definitely received no assistance from the Ombudsman. As I say, it seems to be the situation that an Ombudsman is set up in the Australian scene to take up what is considered wrong on behalf of the individual, the little Australian, but apparently the Ombudsman has no power with regard to a decision made within the Ministry. It is quite apparent that the whole episode was part of a campaign to get the Clunies-Ross family off the islands. I am sad to say that this campaign against the family appears to be still going on very strongly today. This same campaign was apparent in the attempts of the Federal Government to compulsorily acquire the Clunies-Ross family home on Home Island of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The Clunies-Ross family fought this action in the High Court of Australia. Thankfully, the Court found in favour of the family and refused to allow the Commonwealth to evict these people from their rightful property. It is just another example of how attempts have been made and continue to be made to remove the family from their home. Another example came to my attention only this week. It is principally that matter which I wish to raise. When I visited the Cocos (Keeling) Islands earlier this year I had the pleasure of meeting Mr John Clunies-Ross, Jr, his wife Vicki-just a young couple-and their young family. They have a baby, born in August, only three months old, and two toddlers-one 18 months old and one three years old. The family lives near the old Clunies-Ross home on Home Island and is eking out a living by having guests stay on the island and taking them diving in the very clear waters off the islands. It is a tremendous place. I think that this family is fortunate that it can earn some income to enable it to live. The Clunies-Ross family is related to many of the Cocos Malay people on the islands. As I have said before, members of the Clunies-Ross family having married Cocos Malay people over a number of generations. Yet, in spite of the family's close ties with the island people, a situation has developed on the island whereby the Clunies-Ross family-I am talking about the junior family, the young family-is being treated as less than equal to other citizens. It was brought to my attention yesterday as an example of victimisation that for about two weeks now the generator belonging to the Clunies-Ross family which supplies its home with electricity for lighting, refrigeration and pumping water from the well has been broken down. Members of the Clunies-Ross family have been denied access to the community electricity supply. While they have been loaned a small generator which is sufficient to supply power for some lights and refrigeration, they have to draw water by hand from their well. There is insufficient electricity for them to pump water from their well to provide water for the family. That has to be done by hand. This is causing great difficulties for the family. To many people it might be just a minor matter but to me this is part of a list of things that are being done to try to drive this family into the ground. It seems quite incredible that the family is not provided with access to the community electricity source. After all, these people are citizens of that place, yet they are banned from getting electricity. They are Australian citizens with a legitimate entitlement to their property and their lease but they are the only people on the island who have to supply themselves with electricity. That is very difficult. My understanding is that they have sought approval for their property to be connected to the community electricity supply. The Cocos Malay Council sought the advice of the Administrator. The response was that it was not for her to decide. That could be interpreted in a couple of ways. The most generous interpretation would be to say that the Administration was acting impartially and declining to interfere in what should be a matter for determination by the local council. That is a generous interpretation because the reality on the Cocos Islands-the very small islands way out in the Indian Ocean that are Australia's responsibility and indeed now part of Australia-is that the Administration has a record of interference in the affairs of the islands, particularly where the Clunies-Ross family is involved. My interpretation of the approach by the Cocos Malay Council to the Administrator is that because the people to a great extent are dependent upon the largesse of the Commonwealth, they have learnt that it is not in their best interests to put the Commonwealth or its public servants offside. Hence they have sought the approval of the Administration when approached by the Clunies-Ross family for assistance in a time of considerable difficulty and stress. On this occasion no advice was forthcoming but I am aware of at least one instance in the past in which advice was given. This was a disgraceful episode when one considers what the consequences of that advice might have been. The instance to which I now refer occurred earlier this year. The Clunies-Ross boat, a small boat that runs between Home Island and West Island, got into difficulties off the coast. This could have been extremely dangerous in view of the nature of the waters in that area. I understand from a variety of sources that an order was made by the Administration on the islands that the islands' boat-the official boat which is quite powerful and can be used for sea rescue, Customs and so on-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Zelman Cowen. Senator KILGARIFF —That is correct. It was not to go to the aid of the Clunies-Ross vessel which was in distress. I repeat: A boat broke down in the Indian Ocean. The Administration said that the boat was not to go to the aid of the distressed Clunies-Ross boat. This could have been very serious. When one considers the possible gravity of the consequences, one wonders what level the vendetta conducted by the Federal Government and its officers against the Clunies-Ross family has reached. Is it now at the point where the safety and lives of the family are to be put at risk? One could ask the same question about the present difficulties of the family, which I mentioned a little while ago, with its lack of electricity. That is perhaps a more mundane situation. I urge the Federal Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) to look into the situation immediately and ensure that proper recognition is given to just another Australian family, which has very little opportunity to stand up for itself, to see that those people are accorded their rights as citizens equal to other citizens on the Cocos Islands. It would be very regrettable if any member of this young family suffered unduly as a result of what appears to be a policy of victimisation against Australians whose only crime, it appears, is that they have inherited the name of Clunies-Ross. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.40) —I do not want to delay the Senate for very long but I feel disposed to object to an action taken by the Government recently. In an answer to what was obviously a dorothy dix question from Senator Childs on Friday last, Senator Gareth Evans, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), informed the Senate and the people of Australia that an invitation had been extended to Mr Oliver Tambo to visit Australia during the seventy-fifth anniversary of the African National Congress in 1987. In the course of his answer I pointed out quite strongly that the ANC was a group of terrorists and had some sympathy with the South African Communist Party and that, therefore, I object to this invitation being extended to Oliver Tambo. I believe that the majority of Australians would support my point of view, not necessarily because of Mr Tambo's political convictions which, like the convictions of many members of the Australian Labor Party, seem somewhat blurred, but because he is the leader of a terrorist organisation and because he has actively encouraged the horrifying practice of murdering fellow blacks in South Africa by the necklace method. Honourable senators may be unaware of this diabolical method used to kill people. A tyre is placed over the shoulders of the victim and is then filled with petrol or diesel. Diesel, apparently, is preferred because it causes more pain. The burning fuel ignites the tyre, which rapidly attains a temperature of between 400 and 500 degrees centigrade. As the tyre burns, great clouds of smoke spiral upwards and short chain hydrocarbon fumes are emitted which, when inhaled by the victim, destroy the lining of the throat and lungs. The rubber also begins to melt and runs down the neck and torso, burning deep into the flesh and tissue. The victim is now a living corpse and takes 20 minutes or so to die. During this period the victim's family is forced to witness the cruel murder of the father or mother. In the first four months of this year 250 people were murdered in this fashion by the ANC and its supporters, about the same number of people as were murdered in a similar fashion in the last three months of 1985. The crime of the victims is usually that they are law-abiding citizens whose only offence is opposition to communism and the ANC and displaying a willingness to co-operate with the Government in ensuring the peaceful evolution of change in South Africa. I would like to consider briefly the composition of the ANC National Executive. The Chairman, as I have said, is Oliver Tambo. Tambo has been a communist but there is some doubt about his current professed political beliefs. From this distance I am not prepared to make any further judgments on that matter. His organisation is in coalition with, and largely dominated by, members of the South African Communist Party. The head of the military wing of the ANC is Joe Slovo, who is also the Chairman of the South African Communist Party. Honourable senators with a knowledge of the modern history of communist revolutionaries would be aware of their method of presenting as broad a front as possible to gain internal and external sympathy and support. Once a victory is achieved, the military wing takes over, imprisoning or executing its pre-victory allies. As an example I refer to the South Vietnamese National Front. Since the fall of Saigon I do not think anyone has heard of that group. Senator Jeremiah Denton, who is the Chairman of the United States Senate Sub-committee on Security and Terrorism, in his report of 1982 stated, in relation to penetration of the ANC and the South West African People's Organisation, SWAPO, by agents of Moscow: I hasten to add that it is not my view that the entire membership of these organisations is communist. History demonstrates, however, that the original purpose of the ANC and SWAPO has been subverted and that the Soviets and their allies have achieved alarmingly effective control over them. In 1985, and the situation has not changed much since then, of an ANC executive of 30, all but six were either members of the South African Communist Party or active supporters of that Party. I have shown the list of the National Executive Committee of the ANC to Senator Gietzelt, and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ANC (1985) In 1985 the National Executive Committee of the African National Congress consisted of the following 30 members. Those names that are highlighted are either members or active supporters of the SACP. 1. Oliver Tambo: President 2. Alfred Nzo: Secretary-General 3. Thomas Nkobi: Treasurer-General 4. Thabo Mbeki: Director of Information and Publicity 5. Chris Hani: Political Commissar of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) 6. Moses Mabhida: Deceased 7. Dan Thloome: Deputy Secretary-General 8. Johnny Makatini: Chief of International Department 9. Henry Makgothi: Secretary of the Education Department 10. Simon Makana: Administrative Secretary 11. Gertrude Shope: Chief of the Women's Section 12. Stephen Diamini: President of SACTU 13. John Nkadimeng: Secretary-General of SACTU 14. Joe Modise: Commander of MK 15. Mzwal Piliso: Member 16. Robert Conco: Member 17. Jacob Zuma: ANC Representative in Mozambique 18. Florence Mophosho: Deceased 19. Joe Nhlanhla: Member 20. Joe Slovo: Chief of Staff of MK and Chairman of the SACP 21. Mac Maharaj: Member 22. Aziz Pahad: Prominent ANC/SACP member in London 23. Reginald September: Member 24. James Stuart: Member 25. Francis Meli: Editor of Sechaba 26. Polio Jordan: Member 27. Ruth Mompati: Member 28. Sizakele Sigxhashe: Former Director of Information and Publicity 29. Anthony Mongalo: Member 30. Cassius Make: Member Senator JESSOP —Honourable senators will note that the Secretary-General, the Treasurer, the Political Commissar of the Umkhonto we Sizwe, which is the military wing, and the Commander of that wing are all prominent communists, whereas, apart from the President, the Chief of the International Department and the ANC representative in Mozambique are just fellow travellers. The preponderance of communists on the executive lends weight to the evidence of Bartholomeu Hlapane, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, who stated before the Denton committee: All policy making in the ANC was first discussed by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Apartheid is abominable and has had detrimental effects upon the social and economic development, as well as the political development, of the black people of South Africa. Its removal involves improving the lot of black Africans on a broad front. Politically, the South African Government has chosen to give all South African citizens full participation in local government. However, far from accepting this as a major step in the development of political participation for the black population, the ANC has declared war on all black people participating in local government. The actions taken are reminiscent of the actions of the Viet Cong against village chiefs and schoolteachers in South Vietnam, who were murdered in the most violent manner as a means of terrorising the countryside. Oliver Tambo made this clear when speaking over Radio Addis Ababa on 6 August 1985, when he said: We have achieved a good deal of progress in making South Africa ungovernable . . . for months we have maintained an uninterrupted offensive against the puppet local government authorities in the black urban areas as well as other state personnel in the townships, such as the police and the agents. Nelson Mandela also confirmed this policy as late as August 1985, when he said: There is no alternative to taking up arms. There is no room for peaceful struggle . . . Mandela, 20 years previously, had stated at his trial: In our country, the struggles of the oppressed people are guided by the South African Communist Party and inspired by its policies. We Communist Party members are the most advanced revolutionaries in modern history and are the contemporary fighting and driving force in changing the society and the world . . . The people of South Africa, led by the South African Communist Party will destroy capitalist society and build in its place socialism. The transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class . . . cannot be effected by slow changes or by reforms, as reactionaries and liberals often advise but by revolution. One therefore must be a revolutionary and not a reformist. Senator Kilgariff —A massacre. Senator JESSOP —That is what it amounts to. Senator Kilgariff recognises that. Earlier this year I wrote to President Botha and urged him to release Mandela. I will quote the relevant paragraphs of my letter: It is appreciated that the release of Nelson Mandela could cause some difficulties, as I feel personally that the ANC may jeopardise his safety for their own purposes. However, I believe that if he could be released . . . this act would receive acclaim . . . I believe too, that you should renew your willingness to negotiate with the ANC, as one of the black groups, but only on the condition that they publicly renounce violence, and ensure that their followers give it up . . . President Botha, in his reply to me, wrote: As far as Nelson Mandela is concerned I can only say that as soon as the ANC convince me that they are prepared to abandon violence as a means to achieve political ends, they will be welcome to have discussions with the South African Government. I have on many occasions stated this in public and at this stage I don't think it is appropriate for me to make any further concessions. I believe that, confronted with someone of Mandela's intractability, our present Government would act in the same way as President Botha. Surely, a government has some responsibility to ensure that its citizens are protected from violence, reactionary methods of obtaining political fairness. I think it would be fair to say that we would be placed in a similar position. I know that President Botha would like to see Mandela out of prison. The South African Communist Party and the ANC, I believe, want him to remain in gaol. There are some indications that Mr Mandela would like to get out of goal, but I do not think he can afford to buck the Communist Party. There are many examples of what happens to those who do that. Senator Kilgariff —Like a necklace. Senator JESSOP —That is right. People in South Africa are frightened to co-operate with the Government in any case-black people particularly-because they get the necklace treatment if they show any inclination to contribute to peaceful evolution of change in that country. The record of the ANC, in its association with the South African Communist Party, is well established. For the Hawke Government to talk about its opposition to terrorism on one hand and to invite the head of a terrorist organisation to this country as the guest of the taxpayers of Australia on the other hand is quite reprehensible and is another example of the double standards of the Hawke socialist Government. I object to this quite strongly. I believe that what I have recorded for the benefit of the Senate is a very valid reason why the Government should re-examine its invitation to the leader of this terrorist organisation to come to Australia next year. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(10.53) —I rise tonight to maintain before the Senate the issue of the alternative industrial relations policy being pursued by Peko-Wallsend Ltd and its supporters in the Liberal Party of Australia. Honourable senators will be aware that last month, as chairman of the Government industrial relations and employment committee, I wrote to the major shareholders of Peko-Wallsend Ltd. The major thrust of my letter was twofold. First, I sought support for a more co-operative approach to industrial relations and, secondly, I deplored the manner in which a Peko-Wallsend subsidiary closed the Besco Batteries works, giving only 30 minutes notice to its employees. I wrote because over a period Peko-Wallsend has shown itself to be a leader in taking an alternative confrontationist approach to industrial relations in this country. The principle underlying my letter was to point out to shareholders of that company that they have a responsibility to ensure that companies in which they have an investment practise a co-operative approach to industrial relations and that respect for employees should be the starting point for decisions in that area. I now have in my possession a reply from the State Superannuation Board of New South Wales, signed by the President, Mr Bunbury. I will take a little of the Senate's time to read that very positive reply, the importance of which is emphasised by the fact that I understand it has something like $32m invested in companies associated with Peko-Wallsend. I do so in the hope that the message contained herein is heard loudly and clearly not only in the Peko-Wallsend board room but also in the board rooms of all those companies that feel impelled, through snobbery or political prejudice or other reasons, to treat employees as if they were disposable items akin to razor blades or table napkins. The letter reads: Dear Senator Aulich, I refer to your correspondence of 12th November, 1986, which you advise has been forwarded to the major shareholders of Peko Wallsend. The Board is mindful of the serious adverse effects of poor industrial relations on a company's operations and profitability. A company's performance in that area has a direct bearing on profit potential and is entirely relevant to commercial assessment of a company in terms of investment opportunity. The issue is of importance not only in the area of corporate investment but also in property investment where, over recent years, the Board has, to an increasing degree, become involved in development projects. In the Board's view, both company management and union executives have a fundamental obligation, on the one hand to shareholders, on the other to union members, and also to the community generally, to act responsibly and justly. Instances can be readily cited of circumstances in which both company and union personnel have failed to address the merits/equity/commercial reality of a situation with serious and wide-ranging consequences. As a substantial shareholder in a number of companies, the Board's officers are frequently in discussion with executives of those companies and, amongst other things, issues of industrial relations and industrial harmony are explored. The importance of good industrial relations is highlighted and management responsibility for sound industrial relations is stressed. These areas of discussion can be illustrated with instances where companies have improved industrial relations with, apparently, substantial contribution to profit arising therefrom. The example of the iron ore industry instanced in the appendix to your letter is, of course, a case in point. Your correspondence states that it is the Committee's hope that major shareholders can influence moves to better industrial relations in the companies in which the significant investment is held. From the foregoing, it will be apparent that this Board is endeavouring to do so and sees its action in this area as being integrally related to sound investment practice. In brief, this Board's position rates good industrial relations as of primary importance in assessing a company's potential and profitability. Poor industrial relations have ruined a number of companies; sound industrial relations have demonstrably enhanced performance and profits in other instances. The Board will continue to have regard to a company's record in that area in assessing it both as an investment opportunity and an investment risk. Yours sincerely, G. Bunbury President I also have in my possession a letter from Mr Charles Copeman, who is the Chief Executive of Peko-Wallsend. Since that correspondence has not been cleared by that company for general release, I will summarise it by saying that Mr Copeman's main complaints in his reply to me appear to revolve around the fact that my committee wrote to Peko-Wallsend's major shareholders rather than to him as Chief Executive. I will therefore read the committee's reply to Mr Copeman's complaint. The letter is from me as chairman of that committee to Mr Copeman as Chief Executive of Peko-Wallsend Ltd. It reads: Dear Mr Copeman, I am in receipt of your letter of 20th November. The letter makes quite clear your objections to the fact that my committee has written to major shareholders in your company rather than to you directly as chief executive. My committee did this for four reasons. (a) Shareholders are entitled to know what industrial relations policies are being pursued by those companies in which they have investments. Already responses to this committee's letter indicate quite clearly that co-operation between management and employees is seen as an integral factor in running successful companies. I would assume that investment decisions made by shareholders would reflect that viewpoint. (b) Your previous contacts with government representatives such as the Premier of NSW, Mr Unsworth and the Industry and Commerce Minister, Senator Button have not proved fruitful. In Senator Button's case your attempts to communicate with him were made only on the day that all employees at Besco were sacked. My committee does not see those attempts as indicating any real desire on your part to engage in genuine communication with either the state or federal governments. (c) Your stated concern about the possibility of industrial sabotage at the Besco plant shows quite clearly your lack of trust in your employees. Your fears only serve to indicate how great the gulf is between you and your employees. (d) Your desire for appropriate communication from the Federal Government is at odds with your actions in retrenching Besco workers with only thirty minutes real notice. My committee believes they were entitled to greater courtesy and consideration. We would be very concerned indeed if your company's actions should become the model for handling such matters. Nevertheless, despite my committee's concern with your company's failure to maintain a proper industrial relations policy in the Besco matter we would be grateful for a more detailed explanation of your company's policy in this area. I would assume that your influential position in the Liberal Party would not inhibit you from responding to our invitation. I look forward to your reply. Yours sincerely, TERRY AULICH Chairman Federal Government's Caucus Committee on Industrial Relations and Employment Because I think both letters are self-explanatory in the points they wish to make, I finish on the note that Australia needs co-operation, consultation and mutual respect in industrial relations. We cannot afford the luxury of this type of radical confrontationist politics impinging on the smooth and effective running of our companies. Both at Robe River and at the Besco plant, Peko-Wallsend is out of step with the express desires of the Australian community. Only a small minority believe that that radical hardline approach will actually work. I look forward to the time when the Liberal Party's flirtation with the Peko-Wallsend approach comes to an end and we can work together as Australians to get this country back on its feet again. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.01 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Defence Act-Determinations 1986- No. 80-Overseas Living Allowance. No. 81-Settling In and Settling Out Allowance. No. 82-Child Supplement. No. 83-Reunion Supplement. No. 84-Rental and Utilities Contribution. No. 85-Overseas Vehicle Contribution. No. 86-Complementary Allowances Payable to Member Serving on Duty Overseas. No. 87-Separation Allowance and others. No. 88-Overseas Living Allowance and others. Public Service Act-An Erratum to the Public Service Board Annual Report 1985-86. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 644) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 November 1985: (1) Is there a lack of banking facilities in Kenilworth, Queensland. (2) Is the Commonwealth Bank which is represented by the Post Office, the only Agency in the town since the withdrawal from Kenilworth of trading bank facilities because of the closure of Westpac Bank. (3) Has the Post Office Agent in Kenilworth approached the Commonwealth Bank with a request to upgrade the service to include trading bank services. (4) Is the business community severely disadvantaged because now that Government social security and welfare payments are paid into bank accounts, recipients of these payments must go to other centres to receive their money and while there, they purchase the majority of their food needs. (5) Would it not be possible for a computer terminal to be installed to handle all the necessary banking services required by the town. (6) Is it likely, if Kenilworth continues without adequate banking facilities, that trading will decrease even more than it has in the past few months, resulting inevitably in the closure of more small businesses. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) As you will appreciate, I am not personally in a position to comment on the adequacy of banking facilities in Kenilworth, nor on the effectiveness of existing facilities for the local business community. The location of bank branches and agencies and the facilities provided therein are necessarily matters for determination by the individual banks on the basis of their own commercial judgment. (2) The views of the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation have been sought in respect of those aspects of the honourable senator's questions which relate to the corporation. The Managing Director has advised that the Kenilworth Post Office acts as agent for the Commonwealth Savings Bank (CSB), providing banking facilities in relation to passbook savings accounts, including Savings Investment Accounts. The Post Office also accepts CSB housing loan repayments. The Managing Director has also advised that he understands that a local newsagency currently conducts some agency facilities for Westpac Banking Corporation, the only other bank represented in Kenilworth. (3) A number of approaches (including one from the Post Office agent in Kenilworth) have been made to the Commonwealth Bank regarding extension of its banking facilities in Kenilworth. The Bank is considering the practicability of providing multiple-user access to its remote banking service, Telebank, at the Kenilworth Post Office. Multiple-user access would be a new service for Telebank which presently operates through Telecom's Viatel Service and enables Commonwealth Bank customers, who have a cheque account and/or Keycard Savings Account, to carry out a range of banking transactions from a special terminal. (4) So far as Government social security and welfare payments are concerned, the Managing Director of the Corporation has advised that in respect of Commonwealth Bank customers, such payments can be directed to new or existing CSB passbook accounts (including Savings Investment Accounts) and withdrawals can then be made at the Kenilworth Post Office without the need to go to other centres. (5) As noted in (3), the practicability of providing multi-user access to banking services through Telebank is being considered by the Commonwealth Bank. In the meantime, individual residents of Kenilworth and the surrounding countryside can, if they so wish, apply to have a Telebank terminal in their homes or offices. In addition, a trial of electronic funds transfer terminals, providing access to personal cheque and savings accounts, is currently being conducted within the CSB's agencies located in Post Offices in the Gold Coast region of Queensland. This trial is a joint project between the CSB and Australian Post which is due to be concluded during 1986, and extension of the facility to other points will be considered when the trial is completed and the results have been assessed. The range of services provided, either through Telebank or other electronic fund transfer systems, would be a matter for decision by the Bank, taking into account customers' needs. (6) I am not in a position to comment on whether trading has decreased in Kenilworth or on whether it would continue to do so as a consequence of the banking facilities available in the area. (Question No. 809) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) How many statutory authorities currently exist under the auspices of the Minister's Department. (2) What are the names of these authorities. (3) What appeal mechanisms, if any, exist for the general public to lodge a complaint against these authorities. (4) If it is proved that any member of staff of any of these authorities is guilty of incompetence, what action, if any, could be taken by a member of the public to sue the authority for compensation; if it is not possible to sue the authority, why is that the case. (5) How many cases concerning these authorities are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and what is the delay at present between the listing of a case and its hearing before the Tribunal. (6) If any statutory authority under the Minister's Department cannot be sued, will the Minister consider amending the relevant legislation to make this possible. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 11-This figure does not include the three Taxation Boards of Review which were transferred to the Attorney-General's portfolio from 1 July 1986. (2) Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Taxation Office, Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Prices Surveillance Authority, Reserve Bank of Australia, Tax Agents' Board, Sydney, Tax Agents' Board, Melbourne, Tax Agents' Board, Brisbane, Tax Agents' Board, Perth, Tax Agents' Board, Adelaide, Tax Agents' Board, Hobart. (3) The general public can lodge a complaint against any of the statutory authorities within my portfolio by writing to myself or the Minister Assisting me. Members of the public can also approach their local member who could then either refer the complaint to me or, if the matter was likely to be of more general interest, ask a question in Parliament, either without notice or on notice. Members of the public can also seek relief under Common Law. In addition to these general avenues of appeal and complaint, there are some special appeal mechanisms relevant to individual authorities within my portfolio. Details of these mechanisms are outlined below; particulars in respect of Freedom of Information matters have not been included. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Prices Surveillance Authority and Reserve Bank of Australia These organisations are subject to the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and their actions can also be investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Australian Taxation Office The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviews, at the taxpayer's request, the Taxation Commissioner's decision on objections to tax assessments. The Taxation Boards of Relief (Income Tax, Payroll Tax, Payroll (Territories) Tax and Estate Duty) consider applications from taxpayers for release from liability to pay tax where payment would entail serious financial hardship. The Commonwealth Ombudsman can investigate complaints about any action of the Australian Taxation Office. Tax Agents' Boards Tax Agents whose registration is cancelled have a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The actions of the Tax Agents' Boards can be investigated by the Ombudsman. (4) The Attorney-General's Department has advised that, unless an Authority is statutorily protected, it is liable for the torts of its servants committed in the course of their duty. Where employees, acting in the course of their duty are incompetent and, as a consequence, loss is suffered by a member of the public, it will commonly be found that the act or omission which was seen as incompetent was also tortious. In the absence of a denial of liability the negligent giving of erroneous advice is tortious where the advice is given by a person having a duty of care to one who suffers foreseeable damage as a result of reasonably relying on that advice. Many other forms of incompetence would also be tortious, but each case would need to be considered on its own facts. None of the organisations listed in answer to part (2) of this question is statutorily protected against general liability in tort. (5) At 23 October 1986 the Tax Agents' Board had 5 cases before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There is generally little delay between referral of a case by a Tax Agents' Board to the AAT and hearing. (6) Not applicable. (Question No. 986) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 March 1986: (1) Was it alleged in a report in the National Times of 22 November 1985 that the Reserve Bank has refused to hand over information to the Australian Taxation Office relating to speculative profits made at the time of the 1983 devaluation of the Australian dollar, and that such refusal was based on non-existing secrecy powers. (2) Are the allegations made in the article correct. (3) Was this refusal made, despite the bank's understanding that the information would have helped identify tax avoiding speculators. (4) What action is the Government taking to ensure that this kind of irresponsible action is rectified. (5) Will the information be now made available. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) No. The allegation was based essentially on an internal diary note obtained, with other material, by Mr Brian Toohey from the Reserve Bank of Australia under the Freedom of Information Act. It represents Mr Toohey's interpretation of the material made available to him. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, in response to a question from Mr Toohey, informed him in writing that he had drawn an incorrect conclusion. The information available to the Bank did not provide any factual basis for asserting that currency speculation had taken place. The Governor further informed Mr Toohey that the Bank had always co-operated with the taxation authorities. (3) to (5) Refer to (2) above. (Question No. 1262) Senator Foreman asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: For the first 6 months of 1986 (1) What percentage did fleet purchases of motor vehicles comprise of total sales in this period; and (2) How does this figure compare with percentages for 1985, 1984, 1983 and 1982. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) According to data supplied by IDAPS, in the first 6 months of 1986 43.3% (85,827 units) of the registrations of new passenger motor vehicles were fleet vehicles, where the term fleet is used to include ownership groups Government, Hospitals and Institutions or Business categories. This does not include Western Australian registrations which are not separately recorded by ownership category because of State Government confidentiality requirements. (2) The percentage of registrations of new passenger motor vehicles entering fleets for the first 6 months of 1982 was 42.7%; in 1983, 37,0%; in 1984, 40.6% and in 1985 40.1%. The percentage of registrations of new passenger motor vehicles entering fleets for the full year was 43.4% in 1982, 38.4% in 1983, 40.4% in 1984 and 40.2% in 1985. (Question No. 1339) Senator Foreman asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) What numbers of imported motor vehicles were sold in Australia in the first 6 months of 1986 as compared to the same period in 1985, 1984, 1983 and 1982. (2) What number of fleet cars were fully imported in the first 6 months of 1986 and how does this compare with the same period in 1985, 1984, 1983 and 1982. (3) What is the average cost of fleet cars to buyers in the first 6 months of 1986. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The number of imported passenger motor vehicles registered in Australia in the first 6 months of 1986 was 43,320 units. Registrations of imported vehicles for the corresponding period in 1985 were 63,315; 1984, 49,987; 1983, 47,805; and 1982, 49,537 units. These figures are based on data supplied by IDAPS. (2) and (3) Not available. (Question No. 1340) Senator Foreman asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) What numbers of new cars were sold in Australia, in the first 6 months of 1986, as compared with the same period in 1985, 1984, 1983 and 1982. (2) What numbers of commercial vehicles were sold in Australia, in the first 6 months of 1986, as compared with the same period in 1985, 1984, 1983 and 1982. (3) What numbers of fleet sales occurred in the first 6 months of 1986 and how do these numbers relate to the same period in 1985, 1984, 1983 and 1982. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) According to data supplied by IDAPS, in the first 6 months of 1986 there were 201,244 new passenger motor vehicles registered. Registrations for the same period in 1985 were 252,724 units; 1984, 219,620 units; 1983, 195,873 units; and 1982, 223,643 units. (2) There were 70,455 new commercial vehicles registered in the first 6 months of 1986. Registrations for the corresponding period in 1985 were 99,588 units; 1984, 92,718 units; 1983, 78,632 units; and 1982, 84,435 units. (3) Fleet vehicle registrations in the first 6 months of 1986 were 85,827 passenger motor vehicles and 45,272 commercial vehicles. The corresponding figures for 1985 were 99,102 passenger vehicles, 57,344 commercial; for 1984, 87,063 passenger vehicles, 47,931 commercial; for 1983, 72,443 passenger vehicles, 37,297 commercial; and for 1982, 95,531 passenger vehicles and 47,789 commercial. Fleet vehicles are those vehicles registered as Government, Hospitals and Institutions or Business ownership. Except for 1982, the passenger vehicle fleet figures do not include Western Australian registrations which are not separately recorded by ownership category because of State Government confidentiality requirements. The 1982 passenger vehicle figure, adjusted to exclude Western Australian registrations, is 86,954 units. Senator Walsh —On 11 February 1986 (Hansard, page 27) Senator Bolkus asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the preparedness of the Government to make available details of applications for investment in Australia from Philippines citizens. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, the Philippines has been a minor source of foreign funds invested in Australia. At 30 June 1984, the level of Philippine investment in Australia was $32 million. Most of the investment was in service and primary industries. According to ABS figures, in 1983-84 there was no inflow of direct investment from the Philippines and there was an outflow of portfolio investment. During the period 1 January 1978 to 31 December 1985, the Government made decisions under its foreign investment policy on nineteen investment proposals involving Philippine interests. Eighteen of the proposals were approved. These approvals involved estimated expenditure by Philippine interests of $19.2 million, mostly in the primary industry sector. The commercially sensitive information provided by foreign investors to the Government and the Foreign Investment Review Board concerning their investment proposals is given by the investors in confidence and received by the Government and the Board on that basis. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for commercially sensitive details of proposed investments to be released. Senator Walsh —On 6 May 1986 (Hansard, page 2407) Senator Knowles asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning revenue estimates for the fringe benefits tax. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: The data used to derive the revenue estimates for the fringe benefits tax (FBT) came principally from the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication `Employment Benefits Australia' (Catalogue No 6334.0), which contains some information on benefits received by government employees but does not distinguish between levels of government. For the purpose of preparing the estimates of fringe benefits tax revenue separate estimates were not required for the private and public sectors or for individual levels of government. Further resources have since been devoted to the estimation of likely revenue from the FBT which, combined with modifications to the tax, has resulted in revised estimates. One of the most significant revisions related to the FBT liability arising from the fringe benefits provided by Commonwealth Departments and agencies funded from the Budget. An estimate of the FBT liability of Commonwealth Departments and agencies ($138 million) was prepared in the Budget context and is included in the Budget documentation. The Budget papers also contain a revised estimate of $325 million for FBT collections in 1986-87 from the private sector, State and local governments and Commonwealth off-Budget authorities. In relation to the second part of the question, it can not be assumed that payment of the FBT will lead to automatic increases in taxes and charges levied on the general public. As in the private sector, a variety of responses to the tax can be expected, including cases where the employee bears the full burden, cases where some or all of the burden is passed on to consumers and cases where the employer bears the full burden. In the Commonwealth Budget sector, for example, most Departments and agencies were required to absorb most of the cost of FBT within appropriations for administration expenses. However, some additions to administrative expenditure appropriations were allowed where the amounts of FBT involved are very substantial, such as for Defence personnel, or where the FBT relates to the performance of essential activities of Government which are demonstrably non-discretionary to the agencies concerned, such as certain costs associated with overseas service. Senator Grimes —On 22 October (Hansard, page 1723) Senator Peter Baume asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice relating to claims made in advertisements by the Tobacco Institute of Australia that passive smoking is safe. I undertook to refer the matters raised by Senator Baume to the Minister for Health for a further answer. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: It is true that in newspaper advertisements earlier this year the Tobacco Institute of Australia used the names of the Institute of Cancer Research in London and the World Health Organisation in support of the Tobacco Institute's argument that passive smoking was not harmful to health. Professor Robin Weiss and Professor Julian Peto, of the Institute of Cancer Research, in a letter to the Editor of the Australian Financial Review on 25 July 1986, stated that the Tobacco Institute had used the name of the Institute of Cancer Research without authorisation. They further stated that, in their opinion, the risk to non-smokers of developing lung cancer as a result of living or working with smokers may be of the order of one in 1,000, which is probably 100 times greater than the risk caused by asbestos in contaminated schools and homes. In a letter to the Editor of the Australian Financial Review on 6 August 1986, Dr Roberto Masironi, Co-ordinator of the Smoking and Health Program of the World Health Organisation rejected the misrepresentation and unauthorised use of the Organisation's name by the Tobacco Institute of Australia in down-playing the risks of passive smoking and reiterated the view of the Executive Board of the World Health Organisation-which stated that steps should be taken . . . `to ensure that non-smokers should receive effective protection, to which they are entitled, from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke in enclosed public places, restaurants, transport and places of work and entertainment'. The combating of misinformation published by the Tobacco Institute-with its considerable financial resources-is not always easy, and any complaints about tobacco advertisements must be directed to the Advertising Standards Council. Although on this occasion the Council acted appropriately upon receipt of a complaint about this advertisement by the Tobacco Institute, the Institute's tactics must damage seriously whatever public benefit purports to flow from the Voluntary Advertising Code of Ethics and the Cigarette Advertising Code. The incident provides further evidence for direct public health representation on the Advertising Standards Council and the governing bodies of the Cigarette and Alcohol Advertising Codes. Public health interests require that such advertisements and misinformation should be prevented-not merely complained against. A public health presence on the relevant code governing bodies would have sought to prevent the publication of the Tobacco Institute's advertisement because a recognised medical and scientific opinion would have been readily available. The Advertising Standards Council has previously rejected a request from the Australian Health Ministers' Conference for public health representation on the Council. The Conference finds this unacceptable, and will pursue the matter, as appropriate. The Department of Health continually monitors the voluntary Advertising Code for Cigarettes, but its efforts in this regard are frustrated by the lack of public health representation on the Code's governing bodies. However, it will maintain its involvement in developing policies and strategies to reduce the consumption of tobacco products, and will continue to co-operate with State and Territory health authorities and voluntary organisations on matters relating to smoking and passive smoking. The National Campaign Against Drug Abuse is an important avenue for joint Commonwealth and State and Territory action in this regard.