Wednesday, 18 February 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) 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: We the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the proposed Australia Card legislation on the following grounds:- 1. We believe that it represents potentially undesir- able interference in the lives of honest Australians and is a grave interference in the civil liberties of Australian citizens; 2. That it will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud; 3. That it will create unnecessary expansion of the bureaucracy; and calls on the Senate to reject the legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 85 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 76 citizens). We, the undersigned concerned Australian citizens hereby petition the honourable members and senators to totally reject the current proposals for an I.D. card and the proposed Data Protection Agency. We believe that they represent potentially undesirable interference in the lives of honest Australians. Provisions for protection of privacy cannot be guaranteed as Statutes are easily altered by future Governments. We believe that there are more efficient methods to prevent fraud in the areas of Social Security and taxation without the use of these two proposals, which go well beyond the reach of the true role of democratic government. i.e. That citizens may live peaceable lives. The I.D. Card and Data Protection Agency have strong potential under this or future administrations to interfere with the quiet and peaceable lives of its subjects. We your humble petitioners in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Collard (from six citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that whereas: (1) Identification cards and numbers severely threaten our freedom to live unfettered by excessive bureaucratic surveillance; (2) the Government has been unable to present any realistic justification for the introduction of ID cards and numbers: We humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should reject any proposal to inflict ID cards and numbers on the freedom loving people of Australia. by Senator Haines (from 21 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 the proposed Australia Card and personal identifying number constitute a threat to the privacy and freedom of law-abiding Australians. That the proposed Australia Card will be intrusive and costly for Australians and will not be effective in combatting tax evasion or social security fraud. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate continue to reject the proposed Australia Card. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 56 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap may be terminated by either Government on one year's notice from 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modifications of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) The Agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap be terminated one year from October 1986. (2) Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (3) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Robertson (from 282 citizens) and Sanders (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, being concerned that the Australian Government, in breach of its own stated policies, has lifted the bans on the sale of uranium to France; demand that the Government re-impose the bans on such sales, and further, that the Government ratifies and strengthens the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty to prohibit uranium sales within the region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 134 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a ``first strike'' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The ``joint U.S.-Australian'' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Gareth Evans (from 18 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 at the time of his arrest by the Soviet authorities, Vasyl Antonovich Kobryn was Chairman of the Action Group for the Defence of the Rights of Believers, and the Church, which formed in the Ukraine in September, 1982, and which has appealed to the Soviet Government to legalise the Ukrainian Catholic Church and to open seminaries in Lvov and Uzhgorod in the Western Ukraine. That Amnesty International has adopted Vasyl Antonovich Kobryn as a prisoner of conscience, who has been imprisoned for his non-violent exercise of his right to freedom of expression. And that the Australian Parliament therefore urges the Soviet Government to release him. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Honourable members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland showeth that the electoral system in Queensland, based on a 4 zonal weighted system, is an affront to democracy. The National Party under the leadership of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen is always returned to Government with no opportunity for the voting public to bring about change. Your petitioners point out that under the Queensland voting system the National Party at the State elections on 1 November 1986 managed to achieve 55 per cent of the seats with only 39 per cent of the votes. This demonstrates that 61 per cent of Queenslanders do not want a National Party Government yet received one. Your petitioners therefore earnestly pray that the Federal Government legislates as a matter of urgency to bring about a democratic system of voting in Queensland State elections based on the principle of one vote one value. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 16 citizens). To the President and Honourable members of the Senate of the Australia Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectively showeth: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Senator Robertson (from 64 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the introduction of the Fringe Benefits Tax. Because: We believe that this tax is unjust, incentive destroying and detrimental to Australian citizens and our way of life. Your petitioners ask that the Senate in Parliament assembled vote against the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ``X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 66 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of we the undersigned requests that: The Parliament express its concern at the disastrous effect abnormally high interest rates are having on farmers, small business people and families. Your petitioners pray that your house strive to eliminate this unjustified burden that is sending many hard working Australians to the wall. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The ever expanding exorbitant interest rates are casting farmers and city dwellers along with their wives and toddlers into dust and mud stricken roads, as they plod along without success, for alternative accommodation. Your petitioners therefore pray that your House eliminate this outrageous and unjust castigation of our population which is leading to the downfall of this country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 96 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes, and 3. Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing Policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 47 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Plant Variety Rights Bill 1986, now before Parliament, should be withdrawn because: 1. There is growing concern about the economic concentration of the seed industry and the loss of traditional food plant varieties in overseas countries with this legislation. 2. Genes, seeds and other plant genetic material should remain a public resource. 3. The demand for uniformity, imposed by P.V.R. legislation, reduces genetic variability and could lead to the loss of traditional genetic material. 4. P.V.R. will discourage the free exchange of information, seeds and genetic material and is therefore likely to adversely affect Australia's public breeding programmes. 5. Our choice of food, its quality and nutritional value will increasingly be determined by the interests of large overseas companies rather than those of the Australian consumer. 6. There is no requirement in the bill for superiority or for merit testing of varieties to protect the interests of our farmers. 7. The bill can be interpreted to allow the registering of ``discoveries'' of previously unknown Australian native plants, many of which may have great social and/or economic value. 8. P.V.R. will mean higher costs for the farmer and the consumer and an increased burden on the Australian taxpayer. Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament recognise the widespread community opposition to P.V.R. and promote alternative incentives for plant breeding in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jones (from 145 citizens) and Zakharov (from 261 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:- (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Australia Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combatting the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life. (4) That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and other departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 63 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 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 Senator Vigor (from 23 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 shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because: We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill. The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: Despite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights statement that ``the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State'', the present Australian tax system penalises families with children at every level of income. The tax system discriminates in particular against families with large numbers of dependants. This may be one reason why, according to Professor Bettina Cass, only 27 per cent of married couple families with children had three or more children in 1985, in contrast to almost 35 per cent in 1969. Fair levels of family allowances and taxation benefits are the reasonable entitlement and expectation of parents. Such a change in government policy may help to arrest the sharp decline in Australian births with beneficial results for our country. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators MacGibbon (from 114 citizens) and Reynolds (from 114 citizens). We the undersigned deplore the intent and substance of the Plant Variety Rights Bill currently before the Australian Parliament, and already passed by the House of Representatives. Approval of this Bill is unworthy of a Labor Government, especially since widespread public opposition to its support deterred the Liberals from bringing it through Parliament in 1982. Now that a Labor Government has secreted it back to the Federal Parliament's agenda, and without appropriate airing of public opinion, the integrity of the present government will become questionable yet again. The Plant Variety Rights Bill is worded so technically that even the best informed parliamentarians will be left unaware of its hidden potentiality to sell out Australia's most basic resources to multinational corporations. Experience of the results of similar legislation overseas, in both north American and European nations comparable to our own, shows that national seed banks are very seriously neglected and depleted once the potency rights to seeds have been legalised. Australia has one of the most precious seed heritages in the world and this Bill endangers it by granting far too much power over genetic resources to private and multi-national companies. We ask the Opposition to resist this legislation. by Senator Vallentine (from 91 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned petitioners respectfully showeth: That the Launceston Office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs should be re-opened as it provides an extremely important and valuable service to the Northern Tasmanian community. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 43 citizens). To the honourable, the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: a. The Film Censorship Board has classified the film ``Hail Mary'' for general exhibition subject to an ``R'' (Restricted) rating. b. This film is a blasphemous and pornographic attack on the person of Jesus Christ, His Mother Mary, St Joseph and the Archangel Gabriel. As such it is extremely offensive to Christian belief and values. c. We believe that this film breaches regulation 13.1 (1) and (d) of the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations in that it contains blasphemous material. Your petitioners pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should a. Ban the film. b. Improve the quality of censorship out of respect and reverence for the spiritual values of a sizable segment of the population and for the good of the nation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 59 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 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACT deferred decision on the Eastern Parkway because it was not convinced of the need for it. View to be noted: The Eastern Parkway should proceed now because the existing roads are inadequate to meet the expanding needs of Tuggeranong residents. And your petitioners, as in duty pray. by Senator Reid (from 14 citizens). Petitions received. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) takes note of the Report `Empty Bed Blues' by Dr Ross McLeod, which states that Medicare has a severe negative impact on the efficiency of the Australian health industry; and (b) calls upon the Federal Government to review its health policy as a matter of urgency with a view to providing a health care system for Australians which is accessible and cost effective. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on Tuesday, 24 February 1987, I shall move: (1) That the Select Committee on Television Equalisation inquire into and report upon- (a) current levels of media ownership and control in Australia; (b) the effects of current levels of ownership and control on: (i) the diversity of information and opinion available to the public, and whether the supply of information and opinion is compromised, or potentially compromised, by wider commercial interests of media owners, and whether the supply is compromised, or potentially compromised, by foreign ownership of Australian media; (ii) programming, with particular reference to overseas content and the measures needed to maintain appropriate content reflecting local community and national interests; (iii) levels of employment in the media industry; (iv) cost of advertising, particularly to casual and low volume users, e.g. small business. (c) an acceptable level of concentration of media ownership and control in the light of matters ascertained in (b); (d) the measures necessary to reduce current levels of concentration of media ownership and control if these are found to be above acceptable levels; (e) the measures necessary to maintain media ownership and control at acceptable levels, and to prevent foreign ownership and control of Australian media; (f) the measures necessary to encourage community-based and controlled media outlets designed to provide a wide variety of information and opinion, and assess to what extent government support should be given to alternative community-based media; (g) direct communication media (VAEIS, cable services and satellite distribution services) and determine what, if any, controls and licensing regulations are needed; (h) the legislative and other measures necessary to implement the Committee's recommendations. (2) That the Committee commence its inquiry into the matters referred to it by this Resolution upon the completion of its inquiry in relation to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1986. (3) That the Committee report on the matters referred to it by this Resolution on or before the last sitting day prior to the winter adjournment. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its mismanagement of the Australian economy which has resulted in- (a) huge rises in the cost of living, particularly in food prices which have increased by 8.6 per cent for the 12 months to December 1986; (b) the highest interest rate regime in the Western world, in particular, home loan interest rates which are at their highest levels since the Great Depression, resulting in a drastic downturn in home ownership in Australia; (c) huge increases in the prices of motor vehicles of approximately 40 per cent since 1983 which are a direct result of misguided Government policies, the depreciation of the Australian dollar and the introduction of the fringe benefits tax, resulting in lower sales and reduced job opportunities; (d) falling disposable incomes for the majority of Australians caused by higher taxes as taxpayers move into the higher Keating tax brackets; (e) lack of job growth and continuing high levels of unemployment, particularly amongst our youth which are experiencing an unemployment rate between 21 and 23 per cent; (f) continuing high current account deficits, averaging in excess of $1 billion per month on our balance of payments caused by inappropriate cost containment policies; (g) low levels of investment in new job creation industries such as import replacement and export industries; (h) rapidly increasing foreign debt which has trebled since 1983, currently approximately $100 billion and is estimated to increase by a further 50 per cent over the next 3 years unless Government policies are changed, calls upon the Hawke Labor Government to introduce a mini-budget to include lower and flatter rates of income tax, significant reductions in Government expenditure, and the abolition of the fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax and the lump-sum superannuation tax. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) unanimously condemns recent public statements in which a minority Premier from the totally undemocratic Queensland electoral system can fraudulently claim to have a mandate from the Australian people to pursue his attack on the democratic tradition of this Parliament; and (b) wholeheartedly rejects any attempt by the Queensland Premier to undermine the Australian democratic process merely to satisfy his personal ambition and protect the interests of his greedy supporters. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses its deep concern and disgust at the continued incarceration of 3 mentally retarded Aboriginal prisoners in Alice Springs Gaol under grossly inhuman conditions; and (b) calls on the Government of the Northern Territory to consult immediately with the Governments of other States to make arrangements for the transfer of these prisoners to an institution where they can be properly and constructively cared for. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the denial by the Soviet Embassy that there is a military base at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam despite all evidence to the contrary; (b) deplores their refusal to admit that they have a base there preferring to call it a marina or transit facility; (c) likewise deplores the refusal of the Australian Government to admit that there are United States bases in this country, preferring to refer to them as joint facilities; and (d) calls for the closure of all foreign military bases in the Pacific region to create a truly nuclear free zone. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) views with dread the prospect of the New Parliament House remaining a bunker with a syringe on top; (b) calls upon the Federal Government to restore forthwith the funding for landscaping and irrigation, and thereby put an end to the environmental vandalism which threatens to turn the New Parliament House into a bare hill cluttered with masonry; and (c) urges the Presiding Officers to convene a meeting of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House without delay, so that fresh consideration can be given to the importance of sustainable vegetation, trees and landscaping, achieving a harmonious and tasteful environment as was originally envisaged by the designing architects. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with regret and astonishment the Federal Government's decision to adopt the Opposition's user-pays policy on higher education by introducing tertiary fees; (b) notes that the tertiary fee blatantly discriminates against external and part time students and those students officially recognised as in need, that is, Austudy recipients, who have to pay and wait for months for reimbursement; and (c) notes that the anomalies in the legislation which are steadily unravelling the tertiary fees legislation were clearly identified in 1986 and would have been eliminated if the Government had accepted Democrat amendments. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the failure of the Federal Government to bring the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Repeal Bill 1986 on for debate; (b) views with alarm the Prime Minister's unlawful direction to the Advisory Council to wind up its affairs without a proper Premiers Conference decision to that effect; (c) requests the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to explain why it failed to draw section 4 1 (a) of the Advisory Council for Intergovernment Relations Act 1976 to the Prime Minister's attention before the unlawful direction in August 1986; and (d) calls upon the Prime Minister to confine himself to what is lawfully possible in the future. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I seek the indulgence of the Senate to make a personal explanation pursuant to standing order 408. Leave granted. Senator REID —Senator Vigor just gave notice of a motion which implied that the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House is responsible for the landscaping of the new building being deferred. As a member of that Committee I would have to say that it is the New Parliament House Construction Authority which is responsible for that decision. The matter has been before the Senate previously. The Committee made a recommendation as to the furniture for the building and the Parliament House Construction Authority rejected that. Senator Gareth Evans —I take a point of order. I would not wish it to be thought that I was going to be too churlish about these sorts of things but, on any view, it is not a personal explanation that Senator Reid is offering. She ought to find some other more appropriate opportunity, perhaps on the adjournment, to set the record straight in the way that she apparently wants. It does not affect her personally. Senator Reid —I wish to speak to the point of order. As an Australian Capital Territory senator, and given that this new building is in my electorate, it is very much a matter of concern to me when an honourable senator puts down a notice of motion that implies something that is not correct. Senator Chaney —Further to that point of order, Mr President: In your less exalted position in the Senate you may have noticed that the giving of these notices of motion is usually not unrelated to political issues. In other words, this is an opportunity for people to make political points. In the circumstances where a political point is being made about the responsibilities of a committee for a decision which is causing considerable controversy in the Australian Capital Territory, I would suggest that the involvement of committee members is a matter which could go to their personal credibility and could require a personal explanation. In my view, the point of order that has been taken by the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate is not a proper one. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. When Senator Reid took the personal explanation I did not see how it was a personal explanation; however, as she is a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House I allowed it. However, I would suggest to Senator Reid that she relate her explanation to her personal involvement on the Committee. Senator REID —This is a matter where the Committee made a decision about furniture and the Authority overruled the Committee, did not take its advice, or whatever explanation one likes. In this instance the Committee certainly made some recommendations about the $47m that the Government has withdrawn from the project this year. This is merely a part of it, but the Authority made the final decision not to go ahead with the landscaping. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Department of the Special Minister of State-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 2. Financial Assistance for the Northern Territory-Commonwealth Grants Commission Report-Pursuant to sub-section 25 (1) of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973. 3. Remuneration Tribunal-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 12aa of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to extend indefinitely the life of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. Without this amendment the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 will expire on 27 March 1987 under the provisions of section 54. The continuation of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 is necessary to equip the Commonwealth Government with the authority to prepare against and manage-in close co-operation with State and Northern Territory governments-a national liquid fuels supply emergency. I stress that the Act provides authority during national emergencies only. State/NT authority continues to apply during localised emergencies. In order to meet, as far as possible, the concern expressed by some States that the proposed Commonwealth liquid fuel emergency legislation might inhibit their own management arrangements, it was agreed in 1983 that the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory would work together (under the auspices of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council) to explore the possibility of developing common-form States and Northern Territory emergency legislation and compatible Commonwealth legislation. To provide a specific time frame for this exercise the Liquid Fuel Emergency Bill included a 3-year `sunset clause' to come into effect from the proclamation of the Act. Recognising that it might not be practicable to develop appropriate replacement legislation, the possible need for the extension of the currency of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act was foreshadowed in the Parliament in 1983. In the event, this precaution has been justified. Despite considerable effort by all of the participating governments it is clear that it will not be possible at present to design consistent liquid fuel emergency legislation. The removal of the sunset provision will not preclude the adoption of alternative emergency legislation at some future date if States' differences are reconciled and an appropriate, mutually acceptable, common-form legislation is developed. In the meantime, it is essential that clear legislative authority exist for the Commonwealth to act in the event of a national emergency. My State-Northern Territory counterparts have indicated to me their willingness to act under delegated powers from the Commonwealth to manage national emergencies. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Senator GARETH EVANS —I table the explanatory memorandum for the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Mr President, I seek leave to amend the text of the notice of motion concerning the hours of meeting. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the hours of meeting of the Senate for the current two weeks of sitting be as follows: (a) during the first sitting week- Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7.30 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Friday, 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-3.45 p.m.; and (b) during the second sitting week- Monday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7.30 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. It is desired by the Opposition to discuss these sitting hours further. It had been hoped that we would have a straightforward agreement for the continuation of the pattern of sitting hours that was established and accepted in the latter part of the last session, but there are some matters which people wish to discuss further. Under the circumstances it would seem appropriate, Mr President, to adopt these hours, in continuation of the previous session, for the next couple of weeks and come back to the Senate chamber at a later stage, hopefully to endorse them but perhaps to vary them in some respects. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition supports the motion in its amended form and thanks the Manager of Government Business for making the amendment. The sitting hours were varied late in the last session to try to accommodate the travel requirements of Western Australians in particular-- Senator Elstob —And South Australians. Senator CHANEY —And South Australians-thank you, Senator-who have a very difficult task getting home. A less circuitous route could be taken by them if we rose at an earlier time on the second Thursday. There is some concern about the difficulty in arranging meetings on Wednesday evenings, for example, the extension, and we want to look at that and discuss it with the Government. I acknowledge that in discussions the Australian Democrats' Leader, Senator Haines, has expressed herself willing to look at the problems of travel of Western Australians. I appreciate that, but the Opposition believes that it is a matter which should be sensibly discussed among the various parties in this chamber. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.22) —Last night I referred to the amendments which the Australian Democrats will be moving to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 and which have to do with the reporting of the activities of the safeguards people. This arises due to our experience of trying to find out where Australian uranium was actually going. Last year, due to a chance conversation with a European diplomat, we discovered that Australian uranium was being sent to Finland for its final use, by way of France, the Soviet Union, Sweden and West Germany. We had to find this out by personal contact with a diplomat involved. This is simply not good enough. Our amendment will give a mechanism for the Australian Safeguards Office to issue a report every year so that we know where our uranium is going and to what uses it is being put-or we hope we will find out. Another amendment to this Bill is being put forward by the Opposition. Unfortunately, the Opposition's amendment is nowhere near as thoughtful or as productive as the Democrats' amendment. Basically it would ensure the ability of nuclear armed and powered ships of the United States of America to enter Australian ports and, of course, enshrine the ANZUS Treaty. The Liberals are continuing their policies of being a doormat for the United States. Senator Hill —Utter rubbish! Senator SANDERS —If we make a noise like a rug, Senator, we get walked on; and we are getting walked on. Look what has happened to us over the Treaty of Rarotonga, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The United States has refused to sign it. Even though Australia bent over backwards to make sure that that Treaty would allow the passage of nuclear armed and powered ships through this area, the United States now refuses to sign it. China has signed the Treaty; the Soviet Union has signed the Treaty; many of the states of the South Pacific have signed the Treaty; but the United States refuses. Senator Hill —Condemn the United States for it. Senator SANDERS —I do condemn the United States, Senator. I condemn the United States for not signing a treaty which would make the area nuclear free. It is obvious that the idea of nuclear free areas are simply not primary to the thinking of President Reagan. Senator Walters —I have never heard you tell the Soviets to get out of Afghanistan. Senator SANDERS —Here is an interesting point. Senator Walters says that I have never told the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact, in the Kremlin in Moscow I sat before members of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and asked them to begin a program-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! Senator Sanders, address your remarks through the Chair. Senator SANDERS —I am sorry. I did that. I sat in the Kremlin and I asked members of the Supreme Soviet to begin a program of unilateral nuclear disarmament. One cannot carry one's protest about disarmament any higher than that. I must say that I got a more polite hearing from the officials of the Soviet Union than I do from the Opposition in this Senate, which shows that members of the Supreme Soviet have more open minds than the troglodyte Right and especially those people who, I am ashamed to admit, come from my own State of Tasmania. Look at what the Treaty of Rarotonga-the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty-has done. It basically has not stopped the transit of nuclear powered ships in the South Pacific area and it has certainly not stopped the shipment of uranium to France. France is actively exploding nuclear weapons in the Pacific. Even more unfortunately for Australia, it is becoming increasingly apparent that it will soon start testing nuclear weapons in the Kerguelen Islands, which are located south-west of Western Australia. Any leakage from testing in the Kerguelen Islands-and France is an irresponsible nation which really does not worry about leakage in the southern hemisphere; it is not testing these bombs in its own backyard-will affect Australia. The radioactivity in the prevailing westerly winds will drift across South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and perhaps up as far as New South Wales. Yet, the Australian Government is happily shipping to France uranium which, unfortunately, like the pig iron before World War II, will come back to damage Australia and Australians. The Bill before the Senate seeks to give legislative effect to Australia's commitment to the non-proliferation regime. It is worthwhile examining today's major proliferation risks. What are they? One of the most horrific risks we face is the deployment of sea-launched cruise missiles. The United States of America is placing its version-the Tomahawk-on many of its naval ships and attack submarines. This is really just a version of the World War II buzz bomb. It has a more sophisticated guidance system but it is basically an air breathing aircraft. It is capable of a range of about 2,500 kilometres; it can travel at almost the speed of sound; it flies along contours; and it is very difficult to detect on radar. It is also very difficult to know whether one is carrying a nuclear warhead or a conventional warhead and this is what makes it dangerous. If a nation detects a cruise missile coming towards it, it has to assume that it is carrying an atomic warhead and World War III is on. The Soviet Union is still developing its response to the Tomahawk-the SSN 21-which will be ready for deployment soon. Sea-launched cruise missiles are designed for war fighting. The Tomahawk comes in both nuclear and conventional versions as do, as far as we know, the Soviet missiles. The Tomahawk can be used in a Libya-style attack on Third World countries. In other words, the United States could have used cruise missiles with conventional warheads against Libya. The Tomahawk can be used in protracted nuclear exchanges and in every conceivable act of war in between those examples. It is part of the United States maritime strategy that is based on the belief that American security is guaranteed by threatening to start a war in all the world's oceans in response to a local conflict somewhere. Thus, if there were a conflict or a threatened conflict in Europe, the first act of the United States would be to destroy Soviet missile-launching submarines wherever they may be and any in this area would be destroyed by submarines directed from North West Cape. So Australia is very much involved in this. Another major proliferation risk is the deployment of advanced submarine-launched ballistic missiles which are accurate enough to use in a first strike. It is becoming more and more apparent that the United States is committed to a first-strike strategy in war fighting. A first strike is very attractive to any military planner because if one can knock out the opposition's weapons immediately, one is, of course in no danger of retaliation. So first strike is becoming paramount in defence thinking. This is basically what Star Wars is all about. Star Wars will only work if in fact a first strike has already knocked out 90 per cent of the Soviet's missile capability. So first strike is very much in the forefront of strategic thinking. Of course, the United States of America is flight testing the Trident 2 missile, which is the sea-based version of the first strike MX missile. The Trident 2, which is a multiple warhead vehicle, is escalating the arms race. We talked about the MX missile briefly. It is now being deployed and the United States is developing a smaller missile called, rather quaintly, the Midgetman. We had the Minuteman; now we have the Midgetman. I think it is deplorable that the United States uses such cute names for such terrifying weapons. The MX missile and the Midgetman both have first strike accuracy. The USSR is deploying a new version of the SS18 as well as the SSX24 and the SSX25 missiles. France is hell bent on becoming the third nuclear super-power. Of course, it is doing this in complete disregard for the concerns of people in the Pacific or the people around the world who are supporting nuclear disarmament. France has started placing the M4 ballistic missile on its submarines. It is developing the ASMP cruise missile to be carried by aircraft and it will deploy the mobile SX intercontinental ballistic missile. France does not renounce the first use of nuclear weapons; it refuses to renounce the first strike of nuclear weapons. In Britain, Margaret Thatcher is convinced that the Trident 2 submarine-launched missile will be Britain's salvation. Of course, she is even more keen on being friends with Reagan and the United States than this Government. China is also continuing to build its nuclear arsenal but China at the moment, of course, has fewer delivery vehicles capable of throwing nuclear missiles to other continents. However, it is still a threat. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is continuing apace in spite of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. As I mentioned yesterday, Israel has 100 to 200 nuclear weapons and it is reported to be developing the neutron bomb. South Africa is co-operating with Israel in developing nuclear weapons. This is a very strange alliance and it comes about only because Israel needs a place to test nuclear weapons. A mysterious flash was detected by an American satellite which was actually not supposed to be in the area at the time. An old Vela satellite which was running out of orbit happened to detect a large flash in the vicinity of Marion Island in the southern ocean east of South Africa some years ago. Most experts agree that this was the test of an atomic weapon, probably in conjunction with the Israelis. The Israelis need a place to text, the South Africans need the Israeli technology, and the Israelis do have a good weapons technology. Pakistan is also developing nuclear weapons and it is being helped by a number of Western countries. This Bill offers no solutions to the accelerating proliferation of nuclear weapons. It lays a legislative groundwork for faithfully tracking Australia's uranium through the international fuel cycle and perhaps into other countries' bombs, but it does not stop that proliferation. We may know how it got there but it does not stop the proliferation. Australia could take two constructive approaches to help curb the proliferation risk. One is to renounce ANZUS and all that it entails and put pressure on the members of the nuclear club to disarm. They will not listen to us when we speak from inside the pockets of the Americans. We have to stand on our own two feet. If we stand on our own two feet the United States will respect us. If the Americans think they have us firmly under their control they will not care what we do, they will not care what we say and they will not care about the impact of their subsidies on our farming communities or anything else. We have found over and again that the Americans will act in their own best interests as they did in the battle of the Coral Sea. As a former American I can evaluate this perhaps better than others in this chamber. The other constructive approach we could take is to stop exporting uranium. Uranium, of course, is the material of nuclear war. It we stop the exporting of uranium the world uranium stockpile will contract, as indeed it is beginning to do now. We can control the supply of uranium. Some say: `Oh well, if we do not supply it somebody else will'. This is not so. There is not an infinite supply of uranium around the world. It is only finite, like everything else in the world. Besides, we have a moral obligation. That argument is similar to the old dope pedlar's argument. Should we peddle dope just because if we do not do so somebody else will? Of course we should not. It is immoral. We should not peddle uranium either. If we stop peddling uranium it will force the countries with a civilian and military nuclear fuel cycle to choose between using uranium for energy and using uranium for building bombs. Senator Hill —So you would withdraw from the NPT? Senator SANDERS —The NPT, the way it is set up, is of no use in stopping the proliferation of nuclear bombs. What we need is a complete disarmament treaty. Nuclear proliferation is fine for those people who do not want to build bombs. If they have signed the Treaty and they do not want to build a bomb, it works. If they do want to build a bomb, they do not sign the Treaty. It is as simple as that. A uranium ban could be used as a lever to force the nuclear club to agree to a ban on the production of fissionable material for use in bombs. This was recommended by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in its recent report `Disarmament and Arms Control in the Nuclear Age'. The bottom line is that the Australian Democrats will support the Bill. We hope that the Government will adopt our amendment, which we feel would lead to the enlightenment of a great number of people as to where Australian uranium is going. It would cause no further work for the Safeguards Office, as it has the material anyway. Our amendment does not in any way imply that the Safeguards Office is not doing its job in not having filed these reports before. It simply had no mechanism to do so. We hope that the Government will support our amendment. We support the Bill. We support it as a step in the right direction. But it is not the ultimate solution. The ultimate solution to the problem we now face is a complete nuclear disarmament coupled with a dismantling of all nuclear reactors. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(10.37) -There are two primary concerns about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill. The first, of course, is the proliferation of restraints, restrictions and punishments which we see in legislation related to all things nuclear. It is a world-wide trend and not something in which only Australia has become involved. I am not saying that those restrictions and punishments are inappropriate, given the damage that can be done with things nuclear; but I believe that they show exactly that nuclear materials are so inherently dangerous that special precautions have to be taken. While the laws and individual legislation, because of the inherent danger of nuclear materials, may appear draconian, they are to dissuade dangerous criminal or politically motivated acts. There are also serious undesirable side effects. Our modern technological society is so complex that one action always has manifold repercussions, and a law to control nuclear materials affects many otherwise legitimately involved people by placing major restrictions on their actions. Those actions may in themselves imply no danger; but, because they might potentially aid persons who are aiming at criminal or other destructive uses of nuclear materials, they are outlawed. Information, however innocently purveyed, becomes dangerous property and becomes severely constrained by laws such as this one. I believe that restrictions on information, which amount to restrictions on public knowledge, have a habit of mushrooming. We face the situation of a growing regime of secrecy and draconian legislation to protect what is just a too dangerous technology. The second concern is that one object of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act will be to carry out obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. As we have heard already, the NPT is considered to be one of the central pillars of Australian efforts in global arms control. It is also the main legitimate mechanism used to justify the sale and export of Australian uranium. Clearly, the NPT is a key treaty in the Australian foreign policy and resources policy environment, so I guess one has to ask what is this Treaty all about. Essentially, it is an agreement by non-nuclear weapons countries not to procure nuclear weapons, in return for some guarantees and promises by those who are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Those promises include `declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament'. Instead of keeping to that promise we find that the most important nuclear weapons power-the United States of America-has actually announced its withdrawal from what was at that time considered and commonly acknowledged as the most effective existing arms control agreement, Strategic Arms Limitations Talks II. As well we found that the United States refused to negotiate on item 2 at the conference on disarmament in Geneva, which was titled `Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament'. Finally, when the two super-powers met face to face for bilateral discussions at the so-called summits, no concrete arms reduction decisions resulted. This is hardly keeping to the spirit or the letter of the NPT. Another promise by the nuclear weapons powers was `to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time and to continue negotiations to this end'. Instead we find that the United States is consistently ignoring unilateral efforts by the Soviet Union to achieve a moratorium on testing. The United States also rejected attempts at the Geneva conference to place the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban on the agenda. Finally, the NPT requires all states to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Instead we find the Soviet Union continuing its military intervention in Afghanistan; we find the United States bombing Libya and attempting to bring down the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua through its paid agents, the Contras, and the constant threat of direct military invasion, as has occurred in Grenada. What guarantees then do the nuclear weapon powers offer the signatories of the NPT? If the Non-Proliferation Treaty is not to become a pathetic monument to super-power cynicism, nuclear weapons states must be pressed to uphold their part of the bargain. I believe that Australia is doing so in introducing this Bill and that it should pass this chamber without amendment and as rapidly as possible to enable the Government to put it into place. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.44) —I wish to speak to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986. The Senate has again this morning listened to a tirade of abuse against the United States by the spokesman for the Australian Democrats, Senator Sanders, who used the occasion to again call for Australia to withdraw from ANZUS, which is, of course, the position of the Australian Democrats. In effect, he indicated that we should withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons because he condemns the export of uranium and because one cannot have it both ways under that Treaty-either one complies with the provisions that one will assist other nations in the development of peaceful nuclear power options or one does not comply with the terms of the Treaty as a whole. We listened to him indicate to us that he is more at home discussing these matters in the Kremlin. Perhaps we were not surprised to hear that. It is of some worry to us that the Australian Democrats, who will again put forward a Senate team at the next election, are adopting such extreme positions-positions which make the Left of the Australian Labor Party appear moderate. Senator Durack —He outdid Senator Coleman. Senator HILL —I say with respect that Senator Coleman's views were much more balanced. Senator Coleman was prepared to acknowledge the fact that the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan is doing nothing to contribute to world peace. I would much prefer to hear the Labor Party supporting Senator Coleman's position that the Soviets should get out of Afghanistan and that we might look towards a cooling of super-power rivalry and progress in the areas of disarmament, which we would all applaud. This Bill will establish for Australia a system for the imposition and maintenance of nuclear safeguards. It is really putting into domestic law practices that have existed in the past in the form of practices rather than law. It is acting in accordance with Australia's obligation under a number of international treaties and agreements, particularly, of course, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly referred to as the NPT. That Treaty works primarily because those states which are prepared to renounce nuclear weapons-trust to the International Atomic Energy Agency the responsibility for monitoring nuclear facilities and nuclear materials, to ensure that there is no diversion into weapons production. In other words, it is designed primarily as a confidence boosting mechanism for those who are prepared to become parties to the Treaty. It gives them confidence that, in giving up the option of nuclear weapons, that is not a course that is being adopted by others who are parties to the Treaty. Of course, there are now 130-odd nation states which are parties to this Treaty, making it probably the most extensive of all the arms control treaties, and perhaps the most durable. Mr Acting Deputy President, what I want to say today is that although this Bill deals with mechanics it does not address the real deficiencies of the NPT system. I suggest to you and to other senators that Australia can do much more to contribute to non-proliferation. In some circles the NPT has become a little motherhood; it has become improper to criticise it. In 1985 the Third Review Conference of the Treaty took place in Geneva. Diplomats from, I think, 84 countries attended the Conference. They came away from that conference feeling happy, and we read that it had been a great success. Why did they conclude that it had been a great success? It was because they had reached a final document of consensus, which they had not been able to achieve five years before. Those of us who are not in the diplomatic world would have thought that consensus-particularly the lowest common denominator consensus, in the language of that final document-was not something to boast about around the globe, and that more could be achieved. Nevertheless, the diplomats returned. The Australian Government reported with an inner glow that a lot had been achieved. It seems to me that most of the basic criticisms of the NPT system still remain. However, to put it in context, we on this side will accept, of course, that horizontal proliferation has been kept to a minimum. But we wonder whether that is because of the Treaty or whether, rather, it is because the majority of nation states do not see it as being in their security interests, fortunately, to have the nuclear weapons option. Certainly, the Treaty has had some effect of giving confidence to states that others will comply, notwithstanding the alarm that we all experienced in 1981 when Israel-by the way, Israel is not a signatory to the Treaty-with its very sophisticated intelligence system, concluded that an Iraqi reactor, a safeguard reactor, was going to abuse its position. I guess that that, to some extent, undermined the confidence that we and other nation states felt. Nevertheless, I understand that some 900 facilities around the world are monitored by the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency. So far there has been no proven misdirection of materials for nuclear weapons purposes. I guess that that is pleasing. Let me deal briefly with the major shortcomings of the system which are not addressed by this Bill and which still exist. The first is, of course, the problem that not all nation states are parties to the Treaty. Two of the five nuclear weapons powers in the world, France and China, are not parties to the Treaty. Of course, others which seem to be, unfortunately, on the path towards becoming nuclear weapons powers are not parties to it. India, as we know, a non-party, has exploded what it has referred to as a peaceful nuclear device. It therefore has the capacity to become a nuclear weapons state at very short notice. It would appear-and I think we should give credit to Prime Minister Gandhi-that that temptation presently is being resisted. However, its neighbour, Pakistan, because of the perceived threat of India's capacity in this area, is developing a nuclear weapons program. Both nations, as I indicated, are non-signatories to the Treaty. They are not obliged by its obligations and have not renounced the option. We know that the United States of America has a considerable capacity to influence Pakistan through its aid program and through its conventional weapons program with Pakistan. We would urge the United States to do all within its resources to dissuade Pakistan from proceeding down that nuclear weapon path. Unfortunately, at the moment the United States appears to be turning a blind eye. We recognise the difficulties and the important role that Pakistan is playing in relation to the Afghanistan problem-the fact that it has been prepared to take so many refugees-and that the United States, in many ways, sees it as the point at which the Soviets are being held at bay. Nevertheless, we would urge the United States to use its best endeavours to dissuade Pakistan from developing nuclear power. It seems to me that that South Asian problem-there has been a history of wars between Pakistan and India, and continuing animosity and distrust exists-makes it one of the most worrying regions in the world. Concern can only increase if it heads down the nuclear weapons path. There seems little doubt now that Israel has nuclear weapons. I refer to the so-called `bomb in the basement' program. In regard to even the small tactical weapons the mind really does boggle at how such nuclear weapons could be used within the restrictive confines of the Middle East. I think that nothing is more striking in the Middle East than how close everything is to each other. One must wonder what possible defensive merit can come out of the development of such a program. Again, if there is one nation in the world that has the power to influence the Israelis, principally because of its enormous aid program, it is the United States. We again urge the United States to influence Israel away from the nuclear weapons option. If Israel has such weapons, it is reasonable to assume that South Africa, similarly, does. We remember the test site in the Kalahari desert that was discovered in, I think, 1977 and the mysterious flash, which was referred to earlier, over the South Atlantic on 22 September 1979. It appears that South Africa has gone down the nuclear weapons path, and why is difficult to comprehend. The greatest threat faced by South Africa, as all would realise, is that of internal violence and disorder, and how the nuclear weapon option could possibly be utilised in those circumstances is beyond comprehension. But regrettably there are probably few states in the world that could have any influence over South Africa towards a sounder policy in this area. Unfortunately, the pattern continues when we look at South America with both Argentina and Brazil appearing to build themselves up to have the capacity to move into nuclear weapons at short notice. That must be a concern. It must be of concern when states, for reasons of status or perceived threat, feel it in their best interests to move down the nuclear weapon path because we are aware that that does not make the world a safer place. So although we may not have acknowledged proliferation by those states which are outside the treaty mechanism, proliferation is occurring, and that is one of the major shortcomings of the treaty system. I suggest that Australians can do a lot more in this area. Through diplomatic and other measures, sometimes aid sometimes trade, Australia can, where appropriate, contribute to reducing tension spots throughout the world. We can play a role in the Middle East. Under the Fraser Government we were prepared to go into the Sinai and add to the multinational observer force to play a small but worthwhile role there in the only treaty that has lasted in the Middle East between Egypt and Israel. It was welcomed by both countries and had the effect of reducing tension. Regrettably, the Hawke Labor Government withdrew our forces. There was one modest example of a way in which Australia could contribute to reducing tension and therefore the perceived need by the states for nuclear weapons but which in this instance was abandoned by the Hawke Government. In the case of Pakistan, through our alliance with the United States of America-an alliance which the Australian Democrats would like to tear up-we have some potential to influence Pakistan to a more sensible policy. With regard to India, we still have ties through the Commonwealth and in other ways. Even in South America it is possible for Australia to play a modest role. When we look at the economic impoverishment there which leads to stresses and governments desiring to attain status in other ways, it becomes obvious that through trade policy, reform of trade policy and sensible aid policy we can in a small but worthwhile way contribute to a sounder economic environment there and less of the stress that leads to nations heading down the nuclear weapon path. The second great weakness in the NPT system is that it distinguishes between the haves and have-nots of the nuclear world and attaches to them different status. Under article 6 the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are obliged: to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament. Regrettably this has not occurred. So we see such nations as India, an important nation of 800 million people, the largest democracy in the world, saying: `Why should we be limited forever to second class citizenship in the world power stakes?'. There is nothing that so distinguishes a world power than having nuclear weapons. Again I suggest that there is a role for Australia to play. The continuing nuclear arms race between the two super-powers is not in Australia's best interests. The record of nuclear arms control is not good, and it is easy to understand the disappointment of the non-aligned and others who are prepared themselves to forgo nuclear weapons but yet who feel threatened by others in the super-power race. It would appear that the Soviet Union is in breach of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. The United States of America has now passed the limits of the unratified SALT II treaty. We hope that it will come back within that treaty. The Soviets testing moratorium brought no positive response and now the Soviets are about to recommence testing. Reykjavik has come and gone and brought a flutter of hope, but it was all somewhat unrealistic. So it is back to the hard grind of the Geneva negotiations. In that area Australia can play a role, particularly through verification. Verification remains an obstacle in the debate but Australia can play a role in a world seismic network. We on this side of the Parliament would urge the Australian Government to do so. With verification can come an increase in confidence between the super-powers and with it a reduction in tension, and hopefully then some progress. It would seem that Gorbachev does offer a better hope than we had in the past from his predecessors. We know that super-power security can be maintained at a much lower nuclear threshold than exists today. A total of 50,000 nuclear warheads around the world is beyond the level that ensures security. I urge Australia to continue to be active, and to be more active, in contributing to a building of confidence through assisting verification that might make progress in this area. But even if the super-powers were to meet their obligations under article 6 we still have the problem of countries such as France, which not only is not a party to the Treaty but also was the only country at the last session of the United Nations General Assembly to vote against a comprehensive test ban treaty. How we shall make progress in influencing such countries as France is beyond my imagination. All we can say is that we have seen countries change their policies in this area when it may not have been believed that it would happen. North Korea, for example, has recently come within the net of the NPT and that would not have been widely accepted a few years ago. China has changed its policy, although not within the NPT. It has changed now to basically acting responsibly and no longer exports nuclear capacity. So that there have been changes by some important nation states of the world. Hopefully eventually influence around the world will be sufficient to persuade France to take a different direction, although one cannot have a great deal of hope at present. The third matter of which I wish to remind the Australian Government is that there is a halfway measure with states which are not members of the NPT, and that is to encourage them nevertheless to abide by International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. In recent years there has been a trend in that direction. It is not something that is encompassed by the Bill, but I urge the Australian Government to continue down that path because, although it might not be the best course, it is nevertheless a better interim position for us to adopt. The fourth point that I wish to raise is the problem which still exists under the Treaty but which is not answered by the Treaty and particularly upsets Third World countries. I refer to the fact that nuclear weapon states are not bound by the NPT safeguards in relation to their non-nuclear plants. This again is a further example of the second class citizenship that exists under the treaty system for those who are not nuclear weapon powers. I urge the Australian Government to use all diplomatic and other measures at its disposal to urge the super-powers and the other nuclear power states to accept total IAEA safeguards over their non-nuclear weapon plants. There has been progress. Before the third review conference, four of the five nuclear weapon states had accepted by agreement that they would do this to a limited extent. At that conference the fifth state, China, likewise agreed. The problem exists that many plants that are non-weapon plants cannot be distinguished from weapon plants. The whole non-proliferation regime is premised upon separating peaceful nuclear power infrastructure from the development of nuclear weapons. I urge this Government to use its best endeavours hopefully to make it obligatory under the Treaty that such facilities be separated so that they could be properly safeguarded in the way that non-nuclear weapon states safeguard their non-weapon nuclear facilities. Australia should also strongly condemn NPT members who supply nuclear technology and materials to non-NPT members. It should be made clear to member countries that such behaviour not only weakens member confidence in the NPT but is a disservice to the cause of international non-proliferation. Australia should recognise its responsibilities under the NPT to help non-weapon states with programs of technical assistance in the peaceful use of nuclear power. It is important that Australia make its own specific contribution towards increasing the advantages of being a member of the NPT. We can look in particular to increased regional assistance, possibly in the provision of expertise in nuclear physics or nuclear medicine. Additionally, we should look to expanding our participation in the nuclear fuel cycle beyond the mining and milling stages. In other words, Australia should develop an indigenous uranium enrichment industry to enable control of its nuclear materials to be maintained well into the nuclear fuel cycle. I would have thought that Senator Georges, who is trying to interject, would agree. He might have a different view of the use of nuclear power, but surely the longer Australia can control the process and the components of the process the more secure is our contribution. In anticipation of the growth in uranium enrichment and reprocessing facilities we should press for a safeguard system which places less reliance on the restraints imposed by bilateral agreements. The need for bilateral agreements points up shortfalls in the system. They might make us feel more comfortable about what we export, but we must be equally concerned about exports by third parties. Lastly, although there may have been something of a slowdown in the growth of civil plutonium stocks in recent times, that is likely to change. As I have in the past, I would like to see more consideration being given to the establishment of international storage plants for plutonium, as opposed to national storage facilities, and I again urge the Australian Government to take a positive lead in such projects. In summary, Australia under the Fraser coalition Government set a high standard in safeguards. This Government is putting into legislative form some of those practices that were adopted by the previous Government. To that extent it is a contribution, although it seems to be more a contribution in rhetoric than in real benefit. I support the NPT and restraints. Most of the nations of the world have been prepared to take action to limit horizontal proliferation. That is desirable, and the fact that we are part of the system is desirable. I am anxious that Australia remain a member of the NPT and contribute to its further development and expansion. I trust that the Australian Government will continue down the path of helping to overcome the deficiencies that I have outlined in the system in order that we might all have the opportunity to live in a safer world. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.10) —The Senate is debating today the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has said that once the Bill is enacted it will give effect to certain of Australia's international treaty obligations which require domestic legislation. Before addressing the specifics of this Bill and the aspects of the Bill to which the Opposition objects, I wish to make a few brief remarks of a more general nature concerning the Federal Government's ongoing neglect of the nuclear industry in Australia. The Minister said in his opening remarks: `It should be noted that Australia's nuclear industry is quite limited in scope compared with other industrialised countries'. The Minister went on to comment that, while we are a major producer of uranium, processing is limited to the production of yellowcake for export. I am not sure whether the Minister was proud to admit to the Senate the inadequacies of the Federal Government's policy on uranium and the development of the nuclear industry; but even if he was not proud he did not appear to be remorseful-which he certainly should be as a Minister for Resources and Energy whose Government is refusing to foster the development of the nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes in Australia. As my colleague, Senator Hill, said, it will bring about increased control of the Australian product. Certainly it enhances the Australian economy-surely that is required very much these days with our economic problems-not to mention the vast numbers of people who would be employed. The Minister continues to ignore the Australian Science and Technology Council, ASTEC, which in a 1984 report commissioned by none other than the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) recommended that Australia increase its involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. It seems to me that certain members of the Government sometimes would like to ignore the fact that Australia is a major uranium producer, despite their policies, and has a part to play in the nuclear fuel cycle. Bills such as this and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill-debate on which was completed in the last 24 hours and which made no provision for the new organisation to become involved with uranium enrichment-are indicative of the Federal Government's short-sightedness. To return to the specifics of the Bill and the elements to which I am opposed, this Bill will give legislative effect to certain of Australia's obligations under international treaties. Last year the Senate debated the Bill which gave legislative sanction to one of those treaties. I refer to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. While the Labor Government is intent on setting up legislation to enable the fulfilment of this Treaty obligation, it is interesting to see the way the Government is blithely putting aside any consideration of the impact of this legislation upon our relationships with our other treaty partners and allies. The main difficulty that the coalition has with the Treaty Bill and this legislation is the restraints they impose on Australia's capacity to maintain our national security and the potential danger they pose to our alliances with the United States and other allies. In relation to the Treaty Bill two other aspects of legislation which related to the prohibition of nuclear testing in the Pacific and dumping of nuclear waste were supported by the Opposition. We have no qualms about those. But on balance the Bill was opposed because of the critical impediments it put in the way of the maintenance of Australia's alliances. As I have said, those alliances are threatened by the provisions of the Bill before the Senate today. The Bill sets out a scheme whereby permits are required for the possession and/or transportation of nuclear items. The permits are to be issued by the Minister, with administrative arrangements to be handled by the Director of the Australian Safeguards Office. As the Minister says in his second reading speech: `The intention is that every aspect of possession, use and transportation of nuclear items should be strictly controlled'. If this provision is taken to its logical-or perhaps I should more aptly say illogical-conclusion it could seriously damage our relationships with our allies such as the United States and Great Britain in that it will require visiting allied nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessels and aircraft to have permits to possess and transport nuclear items. It will be an offence to possess and/or transport such items without a permit. Honourable senators are aware that some of the naval vessels of these two countries-England and the US-are nuclear powered, nuclear armed or both. We are also aware that both countries have a policy of not disclosing whether their ships are armed with nuclear weapons-for sound strategic reasons. While under the proposed legislation the Minister will have some power to exempt certain nuclear material from the provisions of the legislation, it does not appear from the remarks of the Minister in his second reading speech that such exemption will automatically be accorded to visiting naval vessels or aircraft which may or may not require exemption. It may be that the relevant Minister will be able to declare a particular vessel exempt, but equally there seems to be nothing in the provisions of this legislation to prevent a Minister from refusing a permit on the basis that a vessel may be carrying nuclear material. Given the present Federal Government's record to date, it is in no position to idly dismiss this possibility. Honourable senators have only to recall the Invincible fiasco-that disgraceful episode in which the ship of an ally was refused permission to use Australian docking facilities in Sydney when the ship was in need of repairs-to be well aware of the animosity of some members of the Federal Government towards our allies. Senator Collard —A shameful action by a weak government. Senator KILGARIFF —As Senator Collard says. The Federal Government cannot simply write that incident off as an isolated one which will not occur again. One only has to be reminded of the politics and philosophies of so many on the Left of politics to be well aware of their antagonism towards our allies, particularly the United States of America. I am sure that there are many on the Left who would be only too happy at the prospect of our allies being denied the right to bring their military craft into Australian ports. While at present the pragmatists on the Right of the Australian Labor Party maintain a fragile control over their more left wing colleagues, we cannot ignore the possibility of the situation being radically different a bit further down the track. Even if the Government is prepared to state categorically here and now that it does not believe or intend this legislation to interfere with or impair our relationship with our allies whose vessels or aircraft may wish to use port facilities in Australia, there are no guarantees for the future when the ideological balance of the Labor Party may have altered quite considerably. Senator Button —Those on that side should be the ones to talk about that! Senator KILGARIFF —I invite the Leader of the Government in the Senate to listen if he will because what is required in order to overcome any possibility of damage to our relationship with our Treaty partners is an amendment to the Bill to exempt the vessels and aircraft of our allies from the requirement to comply with the legislation. I think that is a reasonable request which would put the legislation more in order. Unfortunately, there are very many people in this country, many of whom belong to the Labor Party, who would like nothing more than to see our alliance with the United States eroded and abandoned. These are the people who supported the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which proposes a prohibition on nuclear armed vessels in the South Pacific area and imposes upon signatories an obligation to refuse home porting to nuclear armed vessels. This Treaty, which the Federal Government has embraced so wholeheartedly, will severely restrict Australia's capacity to protect our national interests in the event of a shift in the military balance in our region, which is precarious to say the least. The Treaty ties our hands, as it ties the hands of any other Pacific nations which choose to sign it. Significantly, it does not tie the hands of the nation whose ever increasing naval presence in the Pacific is threatening to alter the strategic balance of our region. Of course, I refer to the Soviet Union, which has built up its largest naval base outside the Soviet Union at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam and which is embracing the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty with open arms. No wonder. I stress that-no wonder. While the Treaty restricts the United States, which is the only weapons state to deploy nuclear weapons in the defined zone, the Soviet base at Cam Ranh Bay will be unaffected by the Treaty. The installation at Cam Ranh Bay provides a base for Bear and Badger strike bombers which are equipped with nuclear armed cruise missiles and are capable of reaching Australia and many other places in the Pacific. The Soviet naval presence in the waters of the Pacific has increased alarmingly in recent years and we now see overtures from the Soviet Union being made towards some of the smaller island nations, such as Kiribati and Vanuatu. Indeed, the events of recent weeks have shown that the Soviet Union is seeking to gain a firm foothold in the South Pacific by, for example, making landing rights for its airline, Aeroflot, part of a fishing deal with Vanuatu. Its tentacles are creeping out. It is quite clear that the Soviets will exploit the financial and political problems of smaller Pacific island nations to pursue their wider strategic interests and this, of course, is what we have seen in so many other places, to the detriment of those smaller nations and the security of the whole region. In this regard Australia should maintain a very close interest in what is happening in the Philippines where the Government of President Corazon Aquino, in spite of getting great support for her new constitution, is still facing the threat of rebel insurgency from the New People's Army. Perhaps to some degree I am going off at a tangent here, but this matter is part of the problem in the Pacific which concerns us. Australia needs to pay more heed to what is happening in the Philippines and should make efforts to increase friendship and trade links with that country. I was in the Philippines only a couple of weeks ago during the coup attempt by so-called Marcos loyalists and I gained the impression that the Government of the Philippines is looking to friendly nations such as Australia for assistance and increasing aid. Corazon Aquino is facing an implacable enemy in the New People's Army, which is strong and well equipped. It would certainly suit the Soviets' purpose to see the NPA destabilise the Aquino Government, and the United States Government is well aware of the risk to the stability of the region which would be posed if the future of Subic Bay and Clark air base were in question. The future security of the Western Pacific would be jeopardised by the loss of United States access to these bases and United States sources are concerned that the NPA may increasingly look to assistance from sympathetic communist states for arms and equipment. It may well be that Vietnam and Cuba are already sources supplying arms to the NPA in the Philippines. Australia has a vested interest in seeing that President Aquino quells the insurgence and restores her country to democracy. She not only faces the NPA and, on the Right, the so-called Marcos loyalists in the military, but also has the difficulty of rebuilding a country that was left bankrupt by former President Marcos and his cronies who hijacked billions of dollars from the country's coffers. Australia should not limit its support for President Aquino and her Government to cheering from the sidelines, but should be increasing our level of aid to the Philippines. Having been out in the countryside in the Philippines a couple of weeks ago, I saw some indication of this. I would hope that the Government would continue to increase aid. Unless Mrs Aquino is able to put down the NPA and the threat of civil war in the Philippines, there is a risk of her country following the same path as Vietnam. Vietnam has already paid dearly for the millions of dollars worth of Soviet support-about $4.8 billion since 1979-required to keep the Vietnamese armed forces operational. At Cam Ranh Bay the Soviets have at least 26 ships as well as a squadron of MiG-23s and a considerable number of the latest large, continent spanning reconnaissance bomber aircraft, such as the Bear and Badger bombers which I mentioned previously. The Soviet Union maintains about six to eight sophisticated warships at the base and as many support ships, as well as about five or six submarines, amongst which are the Victor-class nuclear powered attack submarines, some of the latest craft in the world. Only last year the huge Soviet battle cruiser Frunze entered the Pacific Ocean. This vessel is a 35,000-tonne nuclear armed and nuclear powered cruiser, and its entry into the Pacific represents a major escalation of Soviet forces in the region. The Vietnamese have been systematically excluded from the area of Cam Ranh Bay, and the naval, communications and intelligence facilities established there are operated exclusively by the Soviets. It is not my wish to go further into that field of Indo-China, but I have had the opportunity of seeing the Soviets in action there, too. Those who believe that, in supporting the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, the Soviets are acting without selfish motives are very naive. This Treaty was a gift to the USSR public relations machine. It allows the Soviet Union to present itself as embracing nuclear non-proliferation while, at the same time, maintaining its heavily nuclear armed arsenal in Vietnam. At this point I might add that I found it very interesting to see that the peace loving and trustworthy Soviets, whose Minister-Counsellor in Canberra, Mr Valery Zemskov, wrote to the Australian newspaper a few weeks ago claiming that there is no Soviet naval base at Cam Ranh Bay, have since been exposed as having been less than truthful about the installation there. It was a rather incredible statement by a person in Australia-a guest of Australia, one would have to say-to make. It was quite ludicrous for a Soviet representative in Australia to claim that there is no base at Cam Ranh Bay. He has now been totally discredited by conclusive evidence of the existence of the naval base. Photographic evidence of the permanent deployment of Soviet ships and war planes at the base was made public only last week by the United States Military Commander in the Pacific, Admiral Lyons. Of course, Australia has ready access to Soviet naval power operating in the Pacific through its surveillance measures. We have known about that for quite a long time-well prior to the statement by Admiral Lyons last week. The United States Government has not been taken in by Moscow's willingness to sign the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. It is a great pity that our Federal Government has been so ready to jump on the nuclear free zone bandwagon without considering the regional and global implications of its actions. This Federal Government may be intent on placating and handing a sop to the left wing elements within its ranks, but it should not be doing so at the risk of endangering our regional security and the future of our alliance relationships. It should therefore take this opportunity to ensure that the legislation before the Senate today is amended to exclude specifically the vessels or aircraft of our allies from any requirement to comply with it. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(11.28) —I intrude to put another view. Listening to Senator Kilgariff, one listens to a speech that could have been made a decade ago. The problem with speeches such as that is that they ignore the changing political situation. They also ignore the fact that the future of the earth is at stake. This whole welter of words which pours forth in debate after debate in this place seems to ignore that fact, that within the foreseeable future the earth could be rendered sterile-as sterile as the moon and as all the other planets in our planetary system. That is a distinct possibility when one considers the processes which are at work. The way to deal with the threat-we have the capacity to deal with it and to remove it-is to bring to an end those processes which are destroying our environment and which are threatening to destroy the earth. This Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 is concerned with one way, and that is to limit and control the nuclear cycle in some way. I put it to the Senate that the situation is so bad that the only way that one can deal with this process is to bring the cycle to an end immediately. The threat is so immense that we should be prepared to take a unilateral decision, we should take steps, to see that the flow of uranium from this country ceases. The understanding must be that unless we do so others will not. The argument that has been put so often is that if we do not supply the uranium others will. It is necessary for us to seize the reality, make a decision and bring the cycle, as far as we are concerned, to an end. That would be the most effective way. The purpose of this Bill is to bring some control into this flow of this dangerous product, but it has been proved ineffective in the past and will prove ineffective in the future. It needs sterner measures. It is impossible to accept the peaceful uses of uranium when they are merely a cloak for its more dangerous uses. Until the nations come to a position where they are prepared to disarm their nuclear arsenals rapidly, we should not be processing or assisting the processing of uranium in any way. Rather than accept Senator Hill's proposition that we should enrich uranium in this country because we could do it securely and well, we should object to and oppose it. Certain political forces that are developing in this country may come to power. One ought not to discount the movement from the north. If such a movement were to succeed and were to be in control of our political decisions, I do not doubt that it would escalate the enrichment of uranium, escalate the cycle and promote the most reactionary and dangerous of policies. I think the danger is too great, and the only way we should proceed is to bring the mining and export of uranium for any purpose to an end until such time as it is safe to go back to examine the possibilities. For that reason I would support any amendment which improves the situation. Limited as the Bill is, I believe it will be improved by the amendments that the Australian Democrats propose. I propose to support those amendments. I now have the luxury of doing as I wish in this place. It will be a limited luxury. Senator Button —Luxury or indulgence? I think there is a slight difference. Senator GEORGES —There is a slight difference. The Minister would see it as an indulgence; I see it as a luxury. That merely indicates the different positions that we have. I believe it to be a luxury, but perhaps I should be using a different term. Perhaps I should be using the word freedom to do as I wish rather than the word luxury. Let us amend the term, and then the Minister might not disagree with the fact that I now have the freedom to do as I wish, understanding just what lack of freedom there is within his Party to do a number of things that he would desire. I was making the point that there is no way out of this problem except to face the stark reality and say `no' to any further development or use of uranium until the world comes to its senses. From what I have heard in the debate in this place, that point has not been reached here, but there are hopeful signs elsewhere. The unilateral decision by the Soviet Union to cease testing was, shall we say, just a step in the right direction to which the United States of America did not respond, and I find that a pity. But putting that to one side, certain changes are taking place in the Soviet Union which make that country's position more acceptable and which leads one to hope that its position will be better understood. We should be fostering and assisting these changes, not opposing with speeches such as that just made by Senator Kilgariff. I think Senator Hill has a better understanding of the situation than does Senator Kilgariff. As we move to a greater national understanding, we should appreciate what I once said in this place. We should be seeking time. We should be buying time to allow good reason to take effect. Until that takes place, let us not do anything that puts the situation at risk. Again, I get back to the fact that Australia should put a stop to the mining and export of uranium. We should withdraw from the cynical act of which the Government was guilty-the export of uranium to France. This debate is urgent because France appears not to consider others but only its own narrow national interest. I think it is a most unacceptable position for Australia to export uranium to France. However, we should reach the position as quickly as possible of not exporting uranium at all. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.38) —The centrepiece of this debate on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. No one has spoken against the Treaty to which Australia has been a signatory for more than 15 years. Indeed, Australia is a leading signatory and supporter of the Treaty. The debate also has as its centrepiece the safeguards which Australia has in an unparalleled way raised to the highest standard in the international area by ensuring that our own uranium that is exported is used for peaceful purposes. Broadly, three groups of senators are participating in this debate. Senator Georges, who is now an independent, having left the Australian Labor Party, is opposed to Australia's involvement in the uranium industry. He is also seeking that Australia should act unilaterally with regard to disarmament. Senator Georges —No, I didn't say that. Senator TEAGUE —Well, I am happy to hear that Senator Georges, with his independence from the Labor Party, still subscribes to a rejection of unilateral disarmament. Certainly we in the Liberal Party do, as does the Government. But, broadly speaking, the honourable senator's views about Australia quitting altogether the uranium industry are shared by other independents in this place and the Australian Democrats. However, none of this group of some seven or eight senators is represented in the other place, the House of Representatives. The group is proposing that Australia should completely leave the whole area by quitting the uranium industry. It is not satisfied that Australia has a safeguards office or that we are a signatory to the NPT, bearing in mind all the best intentions and achievements of the Treaty. It goes erratically away from that. The Government has initiated this Bill and recommended to the Parliament that it be adopted. The Government sees the Bill as strengthening the long tradition that was begun by the Liberal-National Government of a total endorsement and strengthening of the NPT and of our safeguards position. The first difference between the Government and the Opposition in this matter is that we do not want to be seen as reactive to those elements that gained fairly small minority support in the 1984 election, the last Federal election. By reacting to the left wing minority views expressed at that election, the Government is really placing this legislation before us to put about that it is taking new and brave steps towards meeting some of the views expressed by its left wing members and by those who ran on a nuclear ticket in the last election. In so doing, it is putting in jeopardy the defence of Australia and the alliances that we believe are essential to our defence and to the security of the world. This legislation will exclude or restrict the ability of allied vessels or aircraft to visit Australian ports. The Opposition seeks to redress that position by an amendment which would ensure that, in exactly the same way as happens now, the alliance and the defence of Australia are effective. Broadly speaking, we have three positions in this debate. The eight or so independents and Australian Democrats want to rid Australia root and branch of the uranium industry. That view is opposed by all the rest of us in the Senate. The Government has reacted to that minority view with the rhetoric of professing that this is a brave new step. It hopes that this will give it some credentials for claiming that it is sensitive to the concerns in Australia about safeguarding our uranium resources and ensuring that they are used for peaceful uses only. The Opposition does not want to blind the public with rhetoric in this matter or make false professions. We just squarely say that for over 15 years we initiated Australia's total compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and we established the strongest safeguards to protect the peaceful use of Australia's uranium. We have taken every step to do this. We do not regard this Bill-this domestic measure; this enactment of a crime to offend against any of the matters I have been speaking of-as in any way substantially adding to the exemplary model that Australia presents to our people and to the world in these matters. Essentially, I see this as a belt and braces Bill. We already have a very secure belt; we do not need to add the braces of this legislation. However, I and my Liberal colleagues will support the measure. We wish to make the political point that we take this opportunity to express our full support for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, for the Australian Safeguards Office, for the relationship we have with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and for the importance of these areas being further extended and made more stable and secure in all parts of the world. It is important to understand the origin of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the middle and late 1960s. In a crucially significant attempt to conclude the Second World War, the United States, among some other nations, developed the nuclear bomb. As is well known, its first use in Japan in 1945 demonstrated an awesome new weapon that led to a quicker finish to the Second World War than might otherwise have been the case. After the acquisition of those nuclear weapons by the United States, within a few years the Soviet Union also developed that technology and was also a nuclear power. Very soon thereafter, in the 1950s, the United Kingdom gained nuclear weapon capability, followed shortly by France. By 1965, some years afterwards, China also exploded a nuclear bomb. By this stage there was rightfully a concern that already there were too many with this nuclear weapons capability, and this proliferation of nuclear powers, a horizontal proliferation of nuclear powers, was very much resisted by Australia, and rightly so, and by the nations of the world generally. By the late 1960s, in a direct move to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, a treaty was developed and signed not only by those without nuclear weapons seeking to resist horizontal proliferation but also by the principal nuclear weapons states themselves. Now 140-odd countries-all members of the United Nations-subscribe to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Every five years after its first signing there has been a review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in which Australia has been a most active participant, to update and to strengthen the measures that will resist the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. It has been a moderate success. There has not been any declaration by any other country, nor any demonstration of direct nuclear weapons capability, beyond the five who had acquired nuclear weapons prior to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, it is my view that Israel has a nuclear capability and that it would be only a matter of a few days before it technically could finish the acquisition of such a nuclear weapons capability. I would regard that addition to the nuclear weapons club as most unfortunate, as I would the addition of any of the Arab states. Similarly, a nuclear device was exploded by India, apparently for `peaceful purposes'. Happily, there has not been any repetition of that in the more than 10 years since that device was exploded. Pakistan has options to ensure that it is not outwitted or left behind should India, its neighbour and potential enemy, gain a nuclear weapons capability. There is speculation as well as to whether Brazil, Argentina and some other countries have before them lively options for the development of nuclear weapons. It is important that, along the lines of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, there is enormous international pressure on India, Pakistan, Brazil, Argentina and any other country that appears to have before it an active option to acquire nuclear weapons. I want to see those pressures strengthened so that they are totally successful and so that we do not see any other country acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities. But an important aspect of the original international agreement for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was that those countries that already had nuclear weapons would need to take active steps to reduce their nuclear weapons capability. Instead, in the period since the first signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we have seen an increase in the nuclear capability, certainly of the Soviet Union; a comparable strength being maintained by the United States-no effective disarmament; an increase by France; an increase by China, although at still low levels; and perhaps a steady position in the United Kingdom. But whatever that steady or increasing position of those five nuclear weapons states may be, these countries have not lived up to the terms of the Treaty to actively pursue disarmament so that they are less threatening to all the other signatories, and to the rest of the world besides, which are threatened by their having nuclear weapons. I regard it as an urgent matter that the United States and the Soviet Union, in particular, mutually and multilaterally disarm and see real reductions in their nuclear weapons capability to live up to and give greater confidence to the viability of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. No one has argued in this chamber that the passing of this law will see any consequent breakthrough in the international situation that I have described. This belt and braces legislation for consumption in Australia is putting into domestic legislative form safeguards and prohibitions that already exist and that no one has ever doubted have ever been anywhere near compromised. In fact, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), in his second reading speech on this Bill, had this to say with regard to Australia's international obligations: This approach has been successful and there has never been the slightest suggestion from our bilateral partners nor from the IAEA that Australia has not complied with its nuclear safeguards obligations. That is an accurate statement. The Minister is saying that, effectively, no one has made even the slightest suggestion that we have departed from our treaty obligations, our obligations to the international monitors of atomic energy matters, or any of our safeguards obligations. Similarly, the Minister referred in his second reading speech to the Australian Safeguards Office. That already exists. It is just to be given a new name by this legislation and its head is to be made a statutory officer. It is a strengthening, in bureaucratic terms, of an important office. It is not surmised by anybody that the activities of that Office would be any different. The same personnel, the same responsibilities and the same monitoring will continue when this Bill is passed by the Parliament. The Minister said: These functions have been carried out to date by the Australian Safeguards Office without legislative backing and a highly efficient and effective accounting system has been established. There is not the slightest suggestion that we have departed from, or that there is any possibility of our departing from, upholding in the strongest way our own obligations, whether they are in regard to our internal arrangements, to which we are committed, or our international obligations. It goes without saying that the basis of Australia's commitments in this area was established under a Liberal government. I, as a Liberal, and all of my colleagues continue to endorse totally the arrangements with regard to the Treaty, the International Atomic Energy Agency, our bilateral safeguards and the importance of the Safeguards Office. We differ in that we are not reactive, as is this Government, to urgings from its own minority left wing or from those members it has lost to the ranks of the few independents in this chamber. We do not believe that passing legislation such as this for rhetoric reasons enables us to say out on the hustings that brave new steps have been taken to safeguard the sensitivities that the Government is concerned about. I understand that Senator Vallentine will speak after me in this debate. I will not presume as to what she will say; but I do not think she sees any brave new world, any new era of activity, coming from this legislation beyond that which has been well established for 15 years. I refer now to the defence implications of this Bill. This is where there is a risk of endangering Australia's defence and Australia's alliance relationships. This is of no concern to Senator Vallentine or to other independents in the chamber. They want to see unilateral steps taken by Australia towards disarmament; they want to see us completely ending the Australian uranium industry; and they want to see an end to the Australian alliance with the United States of America. It is of no concern to them. They want to stop ship visits and they want to stop our allies landing planes in Australia. They want to see a neutral Australia free of anything to do with our uranium resources. We have heard that said over and over again, and that very minority view no doubt will be put again by Senator Vallentine. The Opposition does not wish to see an end to the alliance with the United States or the general alliance with our Western allies. We believe that those alliances are fundamental to Australia's defence. We believe that it is important to maintain stability against those who could disturb the peace of the world, and that is why it is important that we deter aggressors and potential aggressors. We need to have in place an alliance in which we are an active participant to ensure that deterrence works. I believe that it would be a great offence for this Parliament not to ensure the defence of Australia. Let me refer to one clause of the Bill that I believe leaves open such a risk, such an endangering of Australia's defence. It is provided in the Bill that, when a person or a group has been granted a permit or authority by the Minister to handle any nuclear material, equipment or technology, that permit or decision can be appealed against. Clause 22 (2) of the Bill provides the ability to appeal against that decision of the Minister. It reads: A notice referred to in sub-section (1) shall include a statement to the effect that, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and to sub-section (8) of this section, application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision to which the notice relates by or on behalf of a person whose interests are affected by the decision. That is a very broad and general provision. It would allow any citizen in Australia who felt that his interests were affected by, say, the visit of an allied ship to appeal against the Minister's decision by taking the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The litigation, the delays and the hesitancy that would then be involved would compromise the effective, practical workings of the alliance. I predict that, even though the government of the day is now professing that it also would want to minimise this risk by administrative means, it may be taken to task by that small group of Australians who are committed to do anything, even mischievous things and even to take up unintended aspects of this legislation, to embarrass the government, whether it is the present Government or, as will soon be the case, a Liberal-National Party government. They may use the ability provided in this Act to disrupt Australia's relationship with its allies and the necessary basis for defending Australia. I therefore support the amendment that the Opposition will move to place very clearly in the legislation an exemption for visiting allied forces so that this legislation does not apply to visiting allied ships and visiting allied aircraft that are specifically declared to be such by the Government-that is, by the Minister giving notice in writing in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette-and so that there is no doubt about which ships and aircraft would come under this clause. It would mean that no citizen could take even a mischievous step in litigation to use the unamended form of this Bill to achieve his minority goal of disrupting Australia's alliance relationships and, in the view of the great majority of us in this Parliament, so endangering and putting at risk Australia's defence. It is with this view that the Opposition is drawing attention to the need for this amendment. It is for political and rhetoric reasons that this legislation is before the Senate. It is the Labor Party's reaction to its departed members who went off to join minority independent movements. The Opposition supports very strongly Australia's long term commitment in the past and in the future to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the important work of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the unparalleled strengths in Australia's bilateral safeguards to ensure that all nuclear materials in Australia are used for peaceful purposes, including the production of electricity to meet the energy needs of the world, research in nuclear reactors such as we have at Lucas Heights near Sydney and such other important matters as isotopes for use in various health applications and the various types of radioactive monitoring that is required in many engineering situations. We wish to ensure that we are not myopic, not pushed by a small group that would have us disband the whole apparatus that has been developed so responsibly in Australia for many years. Judging from these views, no doubt this legislation will be passed and I urge honourable senators to support the Opposition's amendment. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(12.06) —Before I deal with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 I would like to comment on some of the points which Senator Teague has just raised. He tried to paint the proponents of nuclear disarmament as unilateralists. I am very glad that Senator Georges was in the chamber to deny that assertion which was made early in Senator Teague's speech. People who are proponents of nuclear disarmament are not saying that the Western alliance only should disband its nuclear weapons. We are talking about multilateral nuclear disarmament. It is indeed mischievous for the Opposition continually to try to misrepresent the position of people in the peace movement. People in the peace movement are taking an even-handed approach towards the Soviet Union in dismantling its nuclear weapons and its base at Cam Ranh Bay. I called for that approach this morning in this very place and I think it is most mischievous of the Opposition continually to try to paint people who are working for peace as unilateralists. We no more want to see the Soviet Union in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean than we want to see the United States nuclear navies in the Indian and Pacific oceans. We are even handed in our approach. We believe that the world should be rid of the menace of nuclear weapons and that applies to both sides of the super-power stranglehold that the world is entwined in at the moment. I think that Senator Teague needs to understand that it is not such a small minority of Australians who are calling for multilateral nuclear disarmament. One should count the people who put nuclear disarmament at the top of their ballot papers in the 1984 general election-there were 600,000 of them in Australia-add the number of people who voted for the Australian Democrats, which amounted to almost 20 per cent of the electorate, and add the number of people who still loyally supported the Australian Labor Party but who felt very trapped by it when it reneged on many of its own policies in this regard. Many people remain loyal to the Labor Party but they also want to see Australia move out of the debilitating alliance in which we are engaged with the United States. Add the 20 per cent who voted in that respect in the 1984 election to all of those who remained loyal to the Labor Party and who would like to see its policies firmed up in this regard and the figure would be something like 30 to 40 per cent of the Australian electorate, not such a small percentage. At least 45 per cent of Australians want to see a stop put to the visits to this country of nuclear armed and nuclear powered warships. That is hardly the small minority to which Senator Teague kept referring in his speech. It is important for Senator Teague to know-this may come as a surprise to him-that in a `no nuclear warships' write-on campaign in the State election in the Western Australian seat of Fremantle last year, 10 per cent of Liberal voters wrote `no nuclear warships' on their ballot papers. I repeat: Ten per cent of Liberal voters in the seat of Fremantle do not want to see nuclear warships visiting their port. To try to paint the proponents of nuclear disarmament as, firstly, unilateralists and, secondly, a very small minority is totally mischievous and misleading to the people who are listening to this broadcast. It is not such a small minority; it is an increasingly growing minority and it will soon be a majority of the Australian people. Ridding Australia of the nuclear industry is shared by not only nine or so people in the Senate but also many more honourable senators and by members of the House of Representatives who, unfortunately, are constrained by their Party's policies. Of course there is a great need for more independents who will speak out and who can stick to their principles on this matter. I am very glad that Senator Georges has joined the ranks of the independents. I must comment on the interjection of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, when Senator Georges was speaking. He called it an indulgence that Senator Georges now has the opportunity to say what he thinks. I think that that is a gross unfairness to Senator Georges. He is now free to be true to his principles and I wish that more people were able to take the stand that he has taken. I cannot support the Liberal Party's amendments which would ensure that our allies' ships and planes should forever be free to bring their nuclear weapons and reactors into our ports. There are environmental dangers and that fact has been brought out very clearly and it will be brought out more clearly by the Senate inquiry into the visits of nuclear armed and nuclear powered warships to Australian ports when it goes around the country this year. There are many environmental dangers but the chief objection which 45 per cent of Australians share is that the warships coming into our ports represent Australia's involvement in the nuclear war fighting strategies of one of the super-powers. We would equally object-we would probably object more vociferously-if the warships represented the Soviet Union, France, China or Britain. They happen to be American warships. We do not like them here because they represent Australia's involvement, Australia's complicity, Australia's being a proponent of the nuclear war fighting strategies, and that is morally abhorrent to 45 per cent of Australians. Senator Teague —You are opposed to the alliance. Senator VALLENTINE —Of course I am opposed to the alliance. In that respect I have to agree with Senator Teague. I am opposed to the morally debilitating nuclear alliance with which Australia is involved. So Senator Teague was right on that score. It is time for Australia to be an independent and nuclear free nation. The Bicentenary which is coming up next year should be a great opportunity for Australia to begin to move away from this morally debilitating nuclear alliance. Australia needs to develop self reliance defence capabilities which, of course, cannot happen overnight. People who are proponents of nuclear disarmament are not saying that Australia should immediately be left undefended. Of course we need to be defended but we must ask the question: Against whom and against what? We must reassess what security really means. I think that security in our region of the world means having close, peaceful, interdependent relationships with our South East Asian and South West Pacific neighbours whose major concern is economic independence. They do not want to be slaves to either of the two super-powers in the Pacific or the South East Asian region. We should be moving gradually to a transition from the colonial client state mentality towards being a responsible independent nation with interdependent peaceful alliances with our neighbours in this region. Australia has a great opportunity to think beyond the blocs, that is, beyond the nuclear super-power blocs which, at the moment, have a stranglehold on the world's people. That is an enormous responsibility for Australians. I totally refute the position which Senator Teague has tried to paint us into of being such a small minority. That is not true. An increasing number of Australians share that point of view. My opposition to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill is quite simple: It is that the nuclear industry system of safeguards is a farce. The international nuclear industry survives only because of the pall of secrecy that hangs over it and this secrecy exists simply because of the massive corporate and government investment in both the civil and military nuclear industries. Nuclear safeguards under the International Atomic Energy Agency's auspices are little more than a sanitised package to keep the public ignorant and silent about the inherent risks at every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle and its immense costs in human, financial and natural resources. The safeguards under which Australia exports its uranium is nothing more than a bookkeeping arrangement. Our Government has said on numerous occasions that Australia's nuclear safeguards are the toughest in the world. Yet can the Government guarantee that our uranium is kept separate for that uranium originating in countries which have less stringent safeguards or, indeed, no safeguards at all? The answer is obviously no. Most uranium exporting countries do not want their uranium to be used for military purposes but as there has been a terrifying escalation of nuclear weapons during the last decade, somebody's uranium is being defrayed to the military nuclear industry. Those safeguard arrangements proposed by this Bill will not offer a cast iron guarantee that Australian uranium-I am being very specific about this matter on a molecule to molecule basis-will not find itself in a very explosive form. Right now we have the ridiculous situation in which this Government has resumed uranium sales to France. France will very probably start testing its nuclear weapons in the Indian Ocean on the Kerguelen Islands, a couple of thousand kilometres west of Western Australia. So we will very likely receive some of that uranium back in a very explosive form if there are leaks from that testing program. No nuclear activity has been free of accidents to date. We cannot expect that, if the French move their testing program to the Kerguelens, it will be safe and that Australia will be free of fallout from, perhaps, our own uranium. How stupid can one get! Even if we were to take the moral high ground and say that our safeguards could offer us a guarantee that our uranium would not be used for explosive purposes, we would be allowing uranium from countries where no safeguards existed to be used for the purpose of making nuclear weapons, which is a somewhat blighted morality. If we take this stand, Australia is still contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We should have no part of it. This Government sets much store by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has clung on by the merest threads at the past two Treaty review conferences, the last one being held in August 1985. Even its proponents are questioning its validity, given the aggressive behaviour of the major nuclear super-powers which directly undermines the Treaty. It cannot be viewed as a Treaty which adds significant weight to Australia's safeguards argument. For instance, if Korea, a uranium client of Australia, were to withdraw from the NPT-which, of course, it could do by giving only 90 days notice-Australia would be in a great bind. Could we get our now unsafeguarded uranium back? That is not likely. I support Australia being part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but am only too aware of its severe limitations. We should be strengthening the NPT and pressuring both super-powers to keep to their part of the bargain-that is, to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. They are obviously violating their obligations under section XVI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nor do I support the Government's interpretation of section IV of the NPT, which it sees as justifying Australia's position as a uranium supplier. Australia has no control over its nuclear material once it leaves our shores. Firstly, we cannot dictate to our clients, with whom we have agreements, what they do with our uranium once the consignment has been delivered. They can use our uranium for their own civil nuclear plants, but there is then the fraught question of the reprocessing of spent fuel rods, or they can resell the uranium to other nations for any purpose that those nations desire. France, which is not a signatory to the NPT, but one with which we have specifically negotiated safeguards, is one such nation that provides many of its west European neighbours with both uranium, which is no doubt supplied by Australia and other less safeguarded uranium exporters, and electricity generated by its many nuclear generators. Secondly, there is no stated contingency for our uranium in the event of it being hijacked by nuclear terrorists of both the state and individual kind. We have seen at least one documented case of a nuclear hijacking. I refer to the cargo ship Plumbat in 1968, which was carrying uranium ore. The operation was widely believed to have been undertaken by Israel-ironically, a nation whose nuclear industry has been under considerable international scrutiny in the past few months. The world has got on its high horse about terrorism, but a scenario related to a hijacking of nuclear materials in transit has not even been addressed by the organisations which this Government is asking us to trust, namely, the understaffed and underfinanced International Atomic Energy Agency and its equivalent in Australia, the Australian Safeguards Office. For the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor the nuclear industry is like putting a fox in charge of a henhouse. It has never yet prosecuted any nuclear power operator for a breach of safeguards, which is hardly surprising given that it is paid to promote nuclear energy and there is no mechanism for such prosecution. This safeguards Bill is a weak attempt to control the movement of nuclear materials in this country. It is a series of permissions to use and transport nuclear material. Overseas experience has shown that safeguards are hardly worth the paper they are written on. The Bill amounts to a promotion of the nuclear fuel cycle in this country, against the better judgment of people who know so clearly that this nuclear fuel cycle is inherently dangerous at every stage. If the Australian Government is really concerned about this safeguards issue, it would be forced to conclude that the only sure safeguard is to leave our uranium in the ground and for Australia to extricate itself from every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(12.20) —In rising to speak to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 I should first make the comment, of course, that the Opposition has quite properly proposed an amendment dealing with the admission of nuclear-powered ships from the United States and other allies in the area. I think it is appropriate that we should remember that, in spite of what Senator Vallentine has said, a vast majority of the Australian population would strongly support the treaty that exists with the United States. Of course, we all, throughout the world, hope that there will never be another major war. Nevertheless, we must be prepared, just in case that should eventuate. In the second reading speech of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), I noted that he boasted of Australia's leading role at the 1985 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference and of our active participation in other international meetings dealing with non-proliferation and safeguards. He also stated: . . . Australia's nuclear industry is quite limited in scope compared to other industrialised countries. We are, of course, a major producer of uranium, but the processing of this uranium is limited to the production of yellowcake for the export market. I noted that Senator Hill, Senator Teague and Senator Kilgariff have maintained that we should go further than that. If we are to maintain a strong voice with respect to safeguards and international proliferation generally, I believe it would enhance and strengthen our hand if we became more involved in the nuclear fuel cycle industry. I have maintained that, in order to fully utilise our resources, we should be in the business of manufacturing fuel rods. There are probably many engineers and scientists in Australia who would suggest that there would be some advantage in leasing rods to other countries on the condition that ultimately they are returned to us for storage and reprocessing. I note that the Chinese have embarked upon that exercise and have offered to store any radioactive waste in their country, well knowing that they will gain quite a lot financially from it. In the future, of course, that particular storage material will form the basis of energy when the technology dealing with nuclear fission expands to the stage where that fuel can be utilised without causing very much pollution. I suggest that our strong showing in the international arena has stemmed from the knowledge and prestige that arose from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which was established under the policies of the then Liberal-Country Party coalition in the early 1950s. By actively pursuing the nuclear fuel cycle, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, although lacking certain large plant experience, was certainly able to stay abreast of other national atomic energy agencies, which permitted it actively to participate in nuclear fuel cycle discussions. The coalition has made the point, in dealing with the legislation that we considered last night, that we have no objections to the provisions which attempt to upgrade the legislation dealing with the AAEC, because the functions of the new organisation, as described in the Bill which was considered last night-the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill 1985-are in very broad terms and at first glance seem to envelop every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium enrichment, power generation and waste disposal, as well as fields such as fusion research and high energy physics. However, the functions of the organisation are also subject to the whim of the Minister. Before he became Minister for Resources and Energy, the present Minister displayed ignorance of nuclear matters which allowed him to be somewhat childish on the subject. I welcome his return to rationality because he seems to be much better informed than he used to be. I have noted this particularly in his answers to routinely crass questions that have been levelled at him by Senators Vallentine and Sanders, including his explanation of the Government's belated decision to continue the export of uranium to France. While I draw some comfort from the Minister's more recent attitude to nuclear science and technology, I am concerned that nowhere in any of the Bills is there a reference to the nuclear fuel cycle. This is reflected in the October 1986 review of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. In his second reading speech Senator Evans stated: Australian Government policy prohibits the development of further stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia and, as I have stated, in the second reading speech on the ANSTO Bill, future research and development activities by ANSTO will be directed towards the peaceful application of nuclear science and tech- nology other than the development of the nuclear fuel cycle. In the section entitled `Strategy for the Organisation' the report states: With the reduction in effort on nuclear fuel cycle programs, the tendency has been for the AAEC to give greater emphasis to programs involving the application of radioisotopes and radiation. The existence of the ANSTO legislation is a reflection of the acceptance of the need to formalise these changes. I am not critical of a policy that makes maximum use of radioisotopes and radiopharmaceutical research, stable isotope separation, and radiation biology. When the AAEC was first established it was principally concerned with the proposed introduction of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity, and the exploitation of our considerable reserves of uranium ores. The pressures for the use of nuclear energy lessened in the 1960s and 1970s with the discovery in Australia of large amounts of conventional fuel. The Minister's departmental discussion paper No. 10 `Energy 2000' concludes: Australia's dependence on oil imports could be considerable towards the end of this century. Such a prospect highlights the continuing need for policies to ensure that petroleum conservation and substitution opportunities are realised fully. In addition, the prospect of lower growth in world energy demand coupled with only moderate increases in energy prices to the end of the century could place some strain on Australia's economy, which has a high reliance on the contribution from energy exports. To some degree the circumstances will call for an increasing emphasis on flexibility in both domestic energy policy and economic policy if Australia is to maintain its role as a major energy exporter. With the unpleasant news of a further deterioration in our unfavourable balance of trade, the prospects forecast in the Minister's paper should alert us to explore all possible sources of energy exports, and yet in that discussion paper the phrase `nuclear fuel' is not used once. It was as though we never had reserves of 463,000 tonnes of uranium ore, which represents some 26 per cent of the Western world's reserves. Senator Townley —The demand will increase over the next few years. Senator JESSOP —That is correct, as Senator Townley knows. He is a student of this subject and has travelled extensively through Europe, and he recognises that the demand will increase over the next few years. Much of our uranium is particularly competitive because of the economics associated with the extraction of that ore. Later in the review of the AAEC, on page 23, the following is reported: The principal part of the waste management program is directed towards Synroc. The Committee notes that the Synroc pilot plant is nearing completion and will probably be operative for only a few years. The only staff involved in the Synroc program (at present in excess of 50) are therefore likely to be available for redeployment in the next five years. This conclusion is based on the assumption that it is not likely that Australia will proceed with the option available to it to develop a nuclear waste disposal industry. The phasing down of the Synroc program therefore provides substantial flexibility in the future management of ANSTO's research effort. I recall that Senator Townley and I visited Sellarfield in England two or three years ago to look at technology in that area. We had a discussion with the scientists involved in the storage of waste. Although they were then content with the borosilicate method of storing such waste, they made the point that synroc will be the second generation storage facility once it is fully developed. That process is now being conducted with the co-operation of the Atomic Energy Agency, as we understood it, in Lucas Heights. The Japanese and the English are co-operating in the development of that technology. Once that is fully developed it will provide a storage facility that will store four or five times the material that the existing borosilicate method will cope with and, more importantly, will be able to be stored up to three kilometres below the surface without any fear of leaching or any of the other hazards that could arise if borosilicate was stored at that depth. The great heat involved can in such circumstances crack the borosilicate storage material, which presents the possibility of water becoming involved with it. At the moment the borosilicate technique is used to store radioactive waste either on the surface or certainly not more than about 300 metres below the surface in geologically stable conditions. Synroc is an Australian invention. This was mentioned in the magazine Nuclear Spectrum in September 1986 in an article entitled `Synroc: Second Generation Immobilisation of Radwaste' by Mr David Coleby, who concluded: Synroc, an Australian invention, shows promise as a second-generation nuclear waste form. Given enough research, development, testing and production engineering of an encouraging nature it could supplant the presently favoured borosilicate glass. Already the effort on synroc greatly exceeds that on any other waste form except borosilicate glass. In spite of the apparent complexity of synroc's structure and properties, its use as a waste form would have little effect upon the overall cost of ultimate disposal of high level radioactive waste. If adequate and continuing support is provided for research, development, testing and production engineering of this concept, synroc may become the preferred waste form of the twenty-first century. I have not heard very much from this Government, particularly from Ministers not known for their own commercial experience, about the lack of entrepreneurial spirit in the private sector, but a little risk oriented support from the Government now may well see Australia earning export income as the year 2000 appears. Such increased export income would offset the imbalance that Senator Evans forecast in his discussion paper No. 10. When, at present, we are faced with a national debt in excess of $90 billion-and this undoubtedly will reach $100 billion by the end of this year or soon after-it is appropriate to observe the importance of increasing our export income capacity. Synroc is one way for that to be achieved in the future. It is also appropriate to observe that in 1974 Australia had an eight-year lead on Canada in developing a uranium industry. Since then, Canadian exploration and mining have surged ahead while Australia has squandered many development opportunities. By 1985 Australia supplied about 10 per cent of the fuel to the world's 350 operating nuclear power stations. Canada supplied 31 per cent. The value of the approximately 3,500 tonnes exported from Australia in 1985 was over $400m. Canada produced over 11,000 tonnes of uranium in 1985-about 1,500 tonnes of this for domestic requirements. Some 1,000 people are employed in the uranium and nuclear industries in Australia. The current total employment in the Canadian industries stands at about 38,000. Although we have done much work in the very important area of waste disposal Canada has researched and developed its own Cando reactors for export and domestic use. Canada has also carried out uranium refining and fuel fabrication-it has refined about 27,000 tonnes of uranium in 1984 and has fabricated 1,850 tonnes of fuel. It is obvious from these facts that Australia is losing a huge amount of revenue as well as the employment opportunities that high technology and manufacturing present. In addition, our continued capability to contribute practical experience as well as theoretical knowledge on safeguards will also be put in some doubt. Therefore, this legislation must be viewed with the knowledge that the present Government's policy is deliberately restricting the further development of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. Such an alteration in policy inevitably will lead to a decline in our expertise and international standing. These concerns were heightened by the fact that many other countries in the Asia-Pacific region are rapidly expanding their resources to be more active in nuclear technology at a time when Australia is restricting not only the development of our uranium resources-the mining industry-but also research and development into the technological side of this expanding industry. It was also noted that this Government's policy of restricting the uranium mining industry is in contradiction to the fact that nuclear power is the fastest growing sector of the world's base line energy industry. That was made clear a while ago by Senator Townley. Some honourable senators believe that Chernobyl spelt the death knell to nuclear energy but the facts are different. It is quite true that man could turn his back on nuclear energy which constitutes only about 5 per cent of the world's energy at the moment and 15 per cent of its electricity. Of course, the figure is four times higher in France. The issue is not technology because-and this is supported by scientists and engineers-with time and money scientists and engineers can meet the most technical challenges. The future of energy will depend on costs, safety and environmental acceptability. Any non-nuclear answer will be poor for at least the following three reasons. It would mean dearer energy-that is becoming clearer every day or month-more pollution and slower economic growth. I heard Senator Georges earlier in the debate mention that the earth would become barren and a wasteland like the moon. I would be very concerned about environmental damage caused by conventional power stations. As I have said time and time again, in America about 28 million tonnes of carbon dioxide is belched forth from conventional hydro-carbon power stations causing absolute horror amongst people in that country because of the devastation caused to the Great Lakes by acid rain-fish and vegetation are dying. The same occurs in Germany where efforts are being made to introduce new scrubbing technology to clean the conventional power stations of Europe. English power stations have also been asked to improve their scrubbing techniques. It is pretty difficult for the British because it costs about 150 million pounds to do that per power station. From an economic point of view they are concerned but the European countries feel so strongly about this matter that they have a policy to reduce the carbon dioxide output from conventional power stations by 30 per cent over the next 10 or 15 years. As an environmentalist I am very concerned about the damage being done to the environment by conventional power stations. The move to nuclear energy was motivated by a desire to reduce dependence on this dirty coal which is dangerous to mine and dependence on oil which is subject to the dictates of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. All nations want a way of generating electricity which is cheap, reliable, smokeless and outside the control of OPEC. By the year 2000 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, on current trends, will rely on nuclear power for a quarter of their electricity. Without nuclear power they will have to use much more oil, coal or gas. Renewable sources of energy-a subject which seems to be dear to the hearts of all of us, particularly the so-called conservationists-will not be making any worthwhile contribution by then. Energy costs from finite sources will have risen sharply-by some estimate they will have doubled-if nuclear power is not available. During the recent freeze in Europe many conventionally powered generating stations could not operate at times when they were desperately needed because the coal was frozen solid and the oil was too cold to be worked. Hydroelectric power stations could not function because the water was frozen. Energy and prosperity are directly connected. For example, between 1949 and 1973 every extra dollar of real gross national product increased energy consumption by 30 megajoules. The oil shock of 1973 combined with the development of electronics altered the relationship between energy use and gross domestic product, but only for the industrialised nations. The poorer countries are still hungry for energy. As such countries industrialise, the demand for energy will increase at a faster rate than their economic growth. It is only later that the situation stabilises in the way that I described before. If the rich nations of the world deny the poor countries cheap and reliable energy they will stunt the growth of those nations in a perverse and callous manner. There is no way that such countries could ever service the loans needed for renewable resource energy systems, which seem to be beloved by such people as Senator Sanders and Senator Vallentine. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer him to the recently concluded visit to Australia by a top level Japanese business mission and to the optimistic view of investment opportunities in Australia expressed in the booklet which was prepared for that mission. Is the Minister aware that the leader of the mission, Mr Amaya, has, on his return to Tokyo, expressed doubts about the prospects for the Australian economy and has said that these concerns will reduce the chance of Japanese investment here? Is he aware that Mr Amaya has identified the uncertain exchange rate, interest rates, commodity prices and the level of foreign debt as factors which will discourage such investment? Is the Minister concerned about this assessment of the Australian economy? Does he agree that it and this week's balance of payments and foreign debt figures underline the urgent need for corrective action by the Government, including a mini-Budget before the end of the parliamentary session? Senator BUTTON —I am not sure which booklet Senator Chaney is referring to when he says it provided an optimistic view of investment in Australia. Senator Chaney —This one. Senator BUTTON —He has now identified the booklet, but I must point out that the Japanese mission itself put out a booklet which was, it is fair to say, optimistic about investment opportunities in Australia. The mission's booklet was published at the same time as the booklet to which Senator Chaney referred. I am aware of the comments made by Mr Amaya since his return to Japan and, indeed, I am aware of the comments he made at a Press conference in Sydney on Monday before the mission departed. I took part in the same Press conference with him. I think it is true that Mr Amaya identified the points to which Senator Chaney referred as being significant in an assessment of the Australian economy. I wish to refer to one or two of those things in a moment. However, one of the significant things about the Amaya visit was the unanimity of view amongst members of the Japanese mission-certainly, the mission identified problems in the Australian economy-about the significant changes that had come about in Australia in the last three years under the leadership of this Government affecting a whole range of matters including structural adjustment, liberalising the financial sector and floating the dollar. Senator Parer —And high interest rates. Senator BUTTON —I said that I would deal with those points in a moment, Senator, if you would just hold your horses. A number of other matters had, in the Japanese view, changed the general impression and perception of Australia in those three years, including the industrial relations situation. Certainly Mr Amaya has expressed doubts about such issues as commodity prices, but I am not sure that that is an issue which is vitally relevant to the question of long term investment in sectors of the Australian economy. I think Mr Amaya conceded this at the Press conference on Monday. I do not quite know, for example, what the relevance of that suggestion is in terms of the list of things which Mr Amaya mentioned and which Senator Chaney put to me. The Government is not in a position to raise the level of commodity prices and this level is the source of most of the serious economic problems facing this country at the moment. That is something on which I have commented. I have pointed out that we must be aware of the question of structural change and improving the sectoral performances of the Australian economy for the medium to long haul if we are to reduce the level of national debt and improve the export performance of this country. Finally, I was asked whether, as a result of this, I believe that we should have a mini-Budget. That is a matter to which I responded yesterday. The Government will consider that question and, if it decides to have a mini-Budget or a May statement, we will make an announcement about that issue at the appropriate time. Senator REYNOLDS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Has his attention been drawn to an article in this morning's Daily Telegraph by Brent Davis, chief economist with the Australian Chamber of Commerce, on the 25c in the dollar flat tax rate proposal? What are the deficiencies of that tax proposal outlined in this article and advocated by the newly self-appointed Queensland leader of the flat earth party? Is it true, as Mr Davis claims, that Mr and Mrs Joe Average on $22,000 a year would have an increased tax burden with a 25c flat tax rate? Senator WALSH —There are two basic matters involved here; the first is the revenue target and the second is the mechanism by which that revenue target is achieved. If we are to take as given the present revenue collected by income tax, then the application of a flat tax in the way that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen suggested would leave the revenue short by about $5 billion in personal taxation alone. If the company tax rate were to be reduced from 49c to 25c in the dollar, then about another $3.5 billion of revenue would be lost, making a total of about $8.5 billion. That is what would happen if the tax system proposed by the mouth from the north was actually put into operation. I might add that it would seem to be absurd, to say the least, to have a company tax rate twice as high as the personal income tax rate, which would be the consequence unless the company tax rate was brought down in accordance with the maximum personal rate. That would be a pretty quick way of finishing both the proprietary and joint stock companies; they would disappear from the face of Australia pretty quickly. It is possible, of course, to design a flat rate taxation system which yields the same amount of revenue as the tax rates scale that will come into effect on 1 July. If that were to be done-and leaving aside for the moment the company tax question-it is certainly correct that people on a $22,000 a year income would be paying more tax. It is also correct that people on incomes very much higher than that would be paying more tax. Ironically or curiously, one of the identifiable occupational groups which would be most adversely affected, really punished hard, by the movement to flat taxation would be the farmers whom Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen claims to represent. Given the fact that farmers' average taxable incomes are probably about $15,000 or $16,000 at the moment, they would be hit harder than any other substantial identifiable occupational group. I observe in passing that it seems curious to say the least that the National Farmers Federation is still playing around with doing research on the effects of flat taxation. One does not have to do very much research at all to realise that the people whom the NFF purports to represent would be very much worse off. It would seem that the objective of the NFF has more to do with serving the interests of its President and his fellow Elders IXL Ltd directors than it does with serving the interests of the people whom he purports to represent. However, in round terms, for the same revenue yield from personal income taxation, about 80 per cent of taxpayers would be paying more tax than they do now were a flat rate system to be introduced. In addition, I do not think it could be reasonably denied that the huge anomaly that would then stand out-a company tax rate double that of the maximum personal rate-would require that the company tax rate be brought down as well, leaving a revenue shortfall of an additional $3.5 billion. Senator PETER BAUME —In view of the rise in short term interest rates that followed the disastrous current account debt for January, I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate three questions: What interest rates are Australians now paying on their home mortgages and their bank overdrafts? Will they rise further in the short term? When will Australians find their interest rates falling? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to provide the precise details of today's interest rates. I will certainly obtain an answer on that for Senator Peter Baume. I was asked: Will I predict when interest rates will fall, or will they continue to rise? I have said in this place on a number of occasions that I am not in the business of predicting interest rates, and I do not propose to start being in that business today. Senator ELSTOB —Has the Minister for Education seen the Press report in the Age of 14 February titled `Libs propose national exam'? Can the Minister confirm that in the unlikely event of a coalition Federal government being elected it would introduce a national entrance examination for tertiary education? Is it true that in the same article a member of the staff of the Opposition's education spokesman is quoted as saying that students who qualify for tertiary places through the national examination would be awarded scholarships for free tertiary education and all other students, apart from those on private scholarships, would pay full fees? Can the Minister also tell me what approximate cost students would be charged if they had to pay full fees? Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. With the exception of the last part, the question relates not to a matter of public administration but to a matter of an alleged policy of the coalition, and it has been made quite clear that that report was inaccurate. It is based not only on a policy which is not within the Minister's administration but also on a false statement which has been corrected by the relevant shadow Minister. Senator Gareth Evans —Are you rewriting that one, too? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I just draw your attention to the fact that the Manager of Government Business is forgetting his good intentions already. It just shows how quickly he falls from the high plans that he has recently adopted. To return to my point of order, Mr President, the whole of the question, apart from the matter of what costs would be involved with respect to the imposition of fees, is in my view out of order and should be so ruled. The PRESIDENT —I would ask the Minister to answer that part of the question that relates to her portfolio. Senator RYAN —I think it is certainly the case that the cost of educating students through higher education in colleges of advanced education or universities is a matter for my portfolio, since our Government is paying this year for something like 390,000 students who are currently in higher education institutions, and I am very well aware of the cost of this exercise which at this stage is substantially a cost to the public purse. The cost of higher education places varies according to the course. Some courses such as law and arts have a lower cost and would be down at about $6,000 a year, including a capital component. Others, of course, are very high cost courses, such as medicine of which some members of this chamber have had the benefit, and would cost in the vicinity of $14,000 a year. Engineering is a very popular course and one that we are expanding. It also is a very expensive course. So the costs vary. At this stage, those costs are borne by us through the grants made available by this Government to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and hence to the institutions. Some minor charges are made by the institutions for their administrative and general services charges-in the vicinity of $90 or $100 a year-and there is the Commonwealth administration charge which is $250 a year-and which will be charged to approximately two-thirds of the students, the less needy students. That large cost is borne by the Commonwealth Government. If Australia were to be moved to a different policy by which students were required to pay full costs, they would be paying somewhere between $6,000 and $14,000 a year. Although it is certainly not my responsibility to determine what the Opposition parties' education policy is and it is certainly not a task that I would approach with any relish, it is, I think, a matter of public concern and debate that we have a number of suggestions, even if they are not policies, emanating from the Opposition, starting with the self-styled new leader of the Opposition, Premier Bjelke-Petersen-- Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: The Minister has been impeccable until about two moments ago. She has now quite clearly moved on to those parts of the question which are outside her administrative responsibilities, and I would ask you to draw her to order. The PRESIDENT —I have been listening to the answer. I ask the Minister to finish the answer to the question as soon as possible. Senator RYAN —I conclude by pointing out that this year the Commonwealth will spend, through the education portfolio, in the vicinity of $5.2 billion. Should there be a withdrawal of the Commonwealth from that area, as has been advocated by some people close or not so close to Senator Chaney, that would be $5.2 billion which the taxpayers would have to bear via State charges. Senator SIR JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to the recently published satellite photographs of Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam and the analysis of the naval surface vessels, submarines and military aircraft that was announced by the United States defence authorities. I ask: Has the Government sought to confirm this information? If so, what is the result of that investigation? If the Government has not sought to confirm or deny the accuracy of assertions which indicate a major Russian military buildup in the Pacific region, why has it not done so? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think discretion is always the better part of valour in defence matters. I will refer that to the Defence Minister. Senator BLACK —In view of recent public commitments by the Queensland Premier to seek election to the House of Representatives at the earliest opportunity, can the Special Minister of State confirm whether this means the Premier is now a candidate under the terms of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and, as such, is the Queensland Premier obliged to account for the source of campaign donations and other assistance, including assistance provided by the State Government and Gold Coast businessman Mr Mike Gore? Senator Chaney —I seem to recall, Mr President, that there is something in the Standing Orders about not requiring an expression of opinion in questions. It seems to me that quite clearly-- Senator Tate —There is an assumption there that I am going to give an opinion. You have not heard the answer yet. Senator Chaney —Mr President, it is not the answer that I am objecting to, as that has not started; it is the question. Mr President, I refer you to standing order 99, which says that questions shall not ask for an expression of opinion and, secondly, for a legal opinion. I would have thought that the question might be struck out on either of those points. The PRESIDENT —I listened carefully to the question. It does verge on seeking a legal opinion. However, I will allow the question on the basis that Senator Tate takes that into account when answering the question. Senator TATE —Mr President, as I listened carefully to the question, it was never my intention to offer an opinion as to whether Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen would feel within the terms of the Electoral Act that have been indicated by Senator Black in his question. I certainly would not want to substitute myself for any court that may have to make such a decision. It may be useful to remind the chamber and the general public that under the terms of the Commonwealth Electoral Act it is a fact that a candidate is defined in relation to an election as including a person who has announced his intention to be a candidate in that election. Of course, if that person should then stand, within 15 weeks after the polling day in that election, it is required that the person give details setting out the total amount or value of all gifts, the number of gifts and the relevant details of each gift received by the candidate during the period that commenced on the day when such a person who has not been a candidate in a previous election has nominated as a candidate or announced that he or she would be a candidate. I think it would be very important for any prospective candidate to keep those provisions of the statute in mind. Mr President, I do not intend to apply them or purport to suggest how any particular person may fall within the terms of that legislation. It may be useful for candidates, though, also to have a look at the election funding and financial disclosure handbook, which I believe is put out by the Australian Electoral Commission, for further detail as to their responsibilities. I think taxpayers in particular are becoming more concerned about the funding of election campaigns. Senator Hill —Not bad for an answer to a question without notice. Senator TATE —I just happen to have a very good brief on the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I believe that taxpayers and the general public would be very concerned that the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act are strictly adhered to and I have no doubt that the Electoral Commission will ensure that that is achieved. Senator NEWMAN —Will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs confirm that the repatriation hospital in Hobart is to remain open and under the control of the Commonwealth, or is it correct that it is to be closed down or placed under the control of the State Government? Senator GIETZELT —I find it incredible that a senator of some repute would ask such a question of a Minister, having regard to the numerous public statements and comments in which I have stressed to the Senate the Government's policy in respect of the future of the repatriation hospital system. There have been extensive negotiations between the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Repatriation Commission and State governments in respect of the future integration of the repatriation hospital system with the States, not on a short term basis but over time, largely to meet the needs of aging veterans, who in the majority of cases now live many kilometres from the repatriation hospitals, which are largely centred in the capital cities. So the Government, in taking the step of discussing the future of the hospitals, has had in mind providing the veteran with the option of treatment in a State hospital system and, in the process of that option being taken up, the repatriation hospital absorbing additional community patients on a pro rata basis. It is the view of the Government and the view of the veteran community that we should maintain a separate repatriation hospital system. I am sure that this is also the view of the other major parties in the Parliament. Negotiations have been proceeding very amicably with all of the States, whatever their political complexions-in other words, not only with Labor Ministers for Health but also with Ministers for Health in Queensland and Tasmania. In fact, I attended the last meeting of the Commonwealth-State Health Ministers conference, at which the Queensland Minister moved, a Labor Minister seconded, and the Tasmanian Minister for Health supported a resolution that we should proceed along the lines of Government policy. That policy is not designed to disadvantage, but rather to advantage, the aged veteran whose spouse is also an aged person. So one has to take into consideration that we are dealing with people who are in the 70 to 90 age bracket. Therefore, we need to afford them the opportunity to have treatment provided for under the Veterans Entitlements Act in the most congenial circumstances, having regard to their geographic location. All I can say is that I am delighted with the response of each of the State Health Ministers, who have promised co-operation. As a matter of fact, as late as yesterday afternoon I was discussing with my officers the current round of negotiations that is proceeding with the States. There was absolutely no intention of closing down any of our repatriation hospitals. In point of fact, we are spending millions more dollars to bring them up to standard in the States, because the previous Government allowed them insufficient resources to maintain the standard that is essential. So I can give Senator Newman and in fact the whole Senate a complete assurance that, rather than closing down the hospitals, the hospitals will continue to be improved. At some time in the future-perhaps by the year 2000-the government of the day will decide the processes by which the Government's current intentions will be realised. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Like Senator Durack, I represent Western Australia and, while commending him on his concern regarding the possibility of French testing in the Indian Ocean, I feel that the Minister's answer to his question yesterday was somewhat inadequate. I refer the Minister to the speech made in Auckland at the Conference of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War by a French scientist, Abraham Behar, when he referred to the imminent move of the French nuclear test site to the Kerguelens, quoting contacts in the French military and scientific community. Can the Minister inform the Senate what steps the Australian Government has taken to ascertain from the Government of France whether it is indeed preparing to move its nuclear test site to Kerguelen, bearing in mind the outright lie made on an earlier occasion when the French Minister of Overseas Territories said in 1961 that `no nuclear tests will ever be made by France in the Pacific Ocean' at a time when work was already under way to prepare for such a program? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry that Senator Vallentine found my answer yesterday inadequate. All I can do is return the compliment in relation to her question today. It is a question which adds precisely nothing to what was put to me yesterday by Senator Durack; nor can I add anything significant to my answer. The Government is not in a position to give any further information than I did yesterday. All I can say, as in effect I said yesterday, is that we take a keen and critical interest in the French nuclear program. We have, as a government, taken up the issue again in recent days through diplomatic channels. The French response when the matter was thus taken up was that the definitive French Government position on nuclear testing was incorporated in a statement by President Mitterrand on 3 February, to which I yesterday referred: `Mururoa exists and will continue to exist. We need to be able to carry out nuclear testing there'. We will continue to press the French Government for a more explicit and absolutely definitive response as far as the possible future use of Kerguelen Islands is concerned, just as we have brought to the attention of the French Government the recent scientific papers, among which I think are included the particular analyses to which Senator Vallentine refers, that question the structural integrity of Mururoa Atoll, and we will continue to seek further information, as I said yesterday, in relation to that. But we simply have no independent advice, information or evidence that would suggest that there is any current reality about the allegations that she and others have made, or the fears that she and others have expressed. Senator PARER —I refer the Minister for Education to her Press release of 12 February entitled `Education boosting exports'. The release said that there had been an explosion in 1987 in the number of courses offered to full fee paying students by Australian universities and colleges and that she expected some thousands of overseas students to enrol here. Can the Minister explain why this opportunity, available only to overseas students, is not available to the tens of thousands of Australian students who qualify but who are unable to make the quotas because of the very limited places? Senator RYAN —The answer is simply a policy one. It is the policy of our Government that Australian students should have access to publicly-funded places in universities and colleges on the basis of merit. It is a system which is substantially supported throughout the academic community and which has led to very high standards-standards which have meant that we are now in a position successfully to export our education services overseas. If the kind of education system which some people on the opposite side of the chamber propose-a libertarian system in which anyone can set up and offer any courses they want and charge what they like for them-had prevailed over the last three or four decades, I very much doubt that we would have maintained the high standards of teaching and research which we now enjoy and which have resulted in overseas students seeking Australian places in established and recognised institutions. Overseas students may apply for places in those institutions which are offering full cost courses and I am pleased to see that there are in the vicinity of 400 spaces now available. However, they still have to meet very high entrance criteria. It is not a question of simply being able to buy their way into places. If they are applying for courses such as medicine-some institutions in South Australia, for example, are offering medical places on a full cost basis to overseas students-they still have to meet the very high entrance requirements of, for example, the medical faculty at Flinders University. So the overseas students are not a lower standard of student. They are not students who can simply buy their way in. They are students who meet the very high academic standards and who can also afford to pay the full cost of their courses. When they do this they are not taking away places from Australian students because extra places are being created by the fees that they are paying. They are paying full costs, including a component for capital equipment costs, so the universities or colleges may expand at no cost to the taxpayer and continue to take in very highly qualified students from this population of overseas students. Senator Parer suggested in his question that students who fail to secure sufficient marks to get a public place in an institution should be able to buy that place anyway. Senator Parer —They are qualified. Senator RYAN —They are not qualified in terms of the places being offered by the institution. It is a competition. I find it quite astounding that we often hear complaints from honourable senators on the other side of the chamber that our society is not competitive enough and that we are not concerned enough with standards and quality. Yet when we have a system-as we have in higher education-which is concerned with standards and quality, which is available only on the basis of merit and which, in a number of areas, has increasingly high standards of entry, we suddenly get complaints and people opposite say: `People who did not get a high enough mark to get a public place ought to be able to buy their way in'. The long term consequences of that would undoubtedly be a lowering and a confusion of standards and a confusion of the purposes of universities and colleges. It is not a course of action that we intend to follow. We are very pleased that our policy of exporting education services is proving to be successful and I believe that several thousands will be enrolling on that basis this year. I suppose that we will have the final enrolment figures in the next six weeks and I will be very pleased to tell the Senate what they are. But it is quite a different kind of operation to say `We have a high quality product for which we are anxious to earn foreign exchange and thus assist in our balance of payments problem,' from saying `We have people who certainly have their higher school certificate. They certainly got marks. They did not get enough marks to secure a place in the institution they wanted. If their parents are rich they ought to be able to buy their way in'. That is not a course of action that this Government will follow. Senator PARER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister saying that the qualifications of those students coming in are higher than the qualifications of those Australian students who are qualifying but not making the quota? What is the difference between overseas students coming in and paying fees and Australian students who would pay fees and who are suitably qualified? Senator RYAN —There is a difference and I thought I gave a very clear example. A Malaysian student wanting to go into a full cost medical place at Flinders University has to have two things: He has to have the $12,000 or $14,000-I am not quite sure what it is-that is the cost of the place and he also has to have a higher school certificate result which is adequate to get that person into medicine. The numbers of students who are saying that they do not have a place are mostly at the lower end of HSC results. Senator Messner —So they are excluded. Senator RYAN —I would say that all students who got a high enough mark to gain entrance to an Australian medical faculty would be able to get a place in some other faculty even if they could not get it in medicine because it is the top 5 per cent. They would be able to get a place, say, in architecture or engineering in another institution. Senator Parer —Why do they miss out? Senator RYAN —It is certainly not the case that the majority of students missing out have marks in the top 2 or 3 per cent; the honourable senator knows that. It is also the case that when an engineering or medical faculty takes full paying overseas students those students have to have marks that are equivalent to the marks of Australian students who are getting in. So standards are preserved, export dollars are earned and merit and quality-- Senator Boswell —And Australians miss out. Senator RYAN —I thought Senator Withers was interested in competition. It now appears that-- Senator Peter Baume —He is not here. Senator RYAN —I have tried to assist Senator Parer. He is obviously having some difficulty in following my very lucid explanation. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister for Education to the report by the Economic Planning Advisory Council released last week advising that a lack of entrepreneurship in Australia is limiting our capacity to exploit opportunities in high technology industries. One way to lift the economic performance of the business sector is to provide an injection of funds into specialised areas such as management education. Can the Minister advise the Senate what contribution the Government has made to management education in Australia? Senator RYAN —I did find myself in agreement with the conclusions of that EPAC paper which stated that managerial expertise in Australia is very weak-there is not enough of it-and by implication the education system should be producing better managers. I am sure that my colleague Senator John Button would agree that one of the main reasons why Australia is having so much difficulty in restructuring the economy is not that workers are unskilled or do not work hard enough or long enough hours but that we are lacking in managerial and entrepreneurial skills of an adequate standard. In recognition of this our Government has a policy of assisting in the development of very high standard management education. For example, we have given special funding to the post-graduate school of business studies at the University of Melbourne-that was a decision of our first Budget-and in the recent Budget we made a grant of three-quarters of a million dollars for new facilities for Macquarie University's burgeoning post-graduate school of business administration. I point out that in both cases we entered into a partnership with the business communities in both those cities. A consortium of industry leaders has raised a couple of million dollars for the Macquarie post-graduate business school. Those leaders are involved in the planning and curriculum of that school. It is a very good example of the new kind of partnership our Government is building up between educational institutions and industry where both contribute and both get a benefit and the result ought to be a much better calibre of business manager and entrepreneur coming on to the business scene. As well as that, through a number of special research centres and a key centre for teaching and research projects, we have assisted in the development of business management education. The decision two Budgets ago to allow a 150 per cent tax rebate for industry funds going into university or college research has meant that there is not only more research money coming into the universities and more opportunities for post-graduate and post-doctoral researchers to work in these areas but also a much closer relationship between the content of the research work carried out under this program and the needs of the industry that is substantially funding it. So I welcome the EPAC report. It drew attention to a major defect in our economy and in Australian business. It is a defect of which we have been aware for some time and I have referred to a number of the steps that we are taking to overcome it. I would like to place on record my appreciation of the total co-operation we are receiving in this effort from major corporations, business councils and so forth. Senator VIGOR —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the widely publicised plans of Telecom Australia to introduce a charge for the use of directory assistance services? Has the Minister made any representations to Telecom about its social responsibility in making such services readily available to the disabled and the disadvantaged? When can a decision be expected in relation to the proposals for charging about 50c a call to obtain directory assistance? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the publicity that this question has received recently; that is, that Telecom is contemplating the introduction of a charge for directory assistance calls. I understand that an in-principle decision to do that in fact has been made by the Board at its February meeting but that the details are yet to be finalised. I say by way of additional comment that there is, of course, a cost entailed in providing directory assistance-a quite considerable cost. I guess that those who believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, as the Australian Democrats do, can ignore such things as real costs; but people who are in positions of responsibility cannot. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the West Australian on Monday reporting the results of a survey by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the National Australia Bank covering the response of business to the fringe benefits tax? What conclusions can be drawn from the survey results? Do those results support the contentions of the shadow Treasurer, Mr Carlton, who was reported in the article as saying that the fringe benefits tax was a big contributor to Australia's `raging' inflation and that the tax was nothing more than a new tax impost on businesses? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report to which Senator Giles referred. The most important single fact to come out of it is that only 6 per cent of the businesses surveyed passed on the cost of the fringe benefits tax, which clearly makes nonsense of the wild assertions by the present shadow Treasurer that the fringe benefits tax would have a significant inflationary effect. What would have a very significant inflationary effect is the consumption tax, the value added tax, which the Liberal Party proposed to bring in until it was vetoed by the National Party. That tax would have added more than 4 per cent to the consumer price index; but it has now been vetoed by the National Party, as we know. We know that the Leader of the Opposition is in exile in Kingaroy. He calls the shots not only for members of his own Party but also for the Liberal Party. I turn finally to the reference to Mr Carlton's comment that Australia has a raging inflation rate. It is certainly true, as the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and a number of other people in the Government and the Australian Labor Party have acknowledged, that our inflation rate is higher than any sensible person would like it to be. It is also true that the cause of the recent increase in our inflation rate has not been wages; it has been the effect of or the flow-on from the devaluation of the Australian dollar. I think it ought to be noted, and in particular Mr Carlton's attention should be drawn to the fact, that the inflation rate is nowhere near as high as it was when he was last in government and when John Howard was Treasurer. Indeed, one of the ironies of the Opposition's comment on an inflation rate for the year ending December which was higher than any sensible person would like is that that was the highest figure we have had since John Howard was Treasurer. That is something which should not be forgotten. Senator WALTERS —I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs why his Department failed to notify war widows of the change, after the August Budget, to the regulations governing their entitlements to reimbursement of travel expenses. I refer to the fact that war widows are now required to notify the Department of Veterans' Affairs every quarter regarding reimbursement of travel costs incurred when visiting their doctors. The Minister will recall that the previous requirement was for annual notification. War widows now applying annually are told that they will receive only the last quarter's expenses, thus losing three-quarters of their entitlement. I further ask the Minister: What are the additional costs incurred by his Department as a result of processing these travel entitlements quarterly rather than annually? Senator GIETZELT —The Senate will be aware that the Government has been constantly reminded of the need to reduce public sector expenditure. Every department has been required to make whatever savings are necessary to meet those objectives, not only because it is a requirement of this Government to save taxpayers' money but also because it is a demand by the community as well as the Opposition. It is true that there have been some changes in this respect, designed only to contain the escalation of costs that relate to the Department of Veterans' Affairs in all of its various functions. I know of no instance where those changes have disadvantaged war widows. I think it is proper that we should have a policy of exercising the proper regulation of costs which were escalating prior to the last Budget. In those circumstances, if Senator Walters believes that there is some particular problem emanating from the changes that have been made, I will be quite happy to examine the complaint. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not answer my question. I asked him why his Department failed to notify the widows of the change from annual to quarterly reimbursement of travel expenses. The Minister just failed to answer that. Why was it that the Department failed to notify the war widows, so that now when they are applying annually they are permitted reimbursement for only the last quarter? Senator GIETZELT —The Department is a very large department. It exercises care and caution in its relationship with its clients. I am not personally aware of any failure on the part of the Department to advise any widow of the changes in the arrangements. As I indicated to Senator Walters, the purpose of the changes is to contain costs, and if they have created any legitimate concerns I will be prepared to review them. Certainly, I will check to see what communication has been sent to the war widows. Senator Walters on a previous occasion completely misled a whole group of war widows in Tasmania about the changes in the last Budget. I would want to check out her assertions before I accepted them at face value. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Finance. Has his attention been drawn to a recent newspaper article reporting the proposals of the honourable member for Kooyong to `make sizable cuts in welfare programs, right through to Medicare'? Can the Minister indicate the extent of potential savings from these sources? Senator WALSH —I am familiar with those reports. In a newspaper which would not be very widely known in the national Parliament- the Wagin Argus of last week-Mr Peacock was reported as saying that a coalition government would make sizable cuts in welfare payments right through to Medicare. Senator Button —The Bjelke-Petersen candidate. Senator WALSH —The Bjelke-Petersen candidate although, oddly enough, at that time he was campaigning with the Liberal Party member who will be opposing the Bjelke-Petersen candidate at the next Federal election. This gives us another perspective on the turmoil raging in that discordant rabble that presently calls itself an Opposition. Before passing on from that quotation, it ought to be noted that the Opposition's Medicare policy would add about $900m to the deficit, that is, if it is still the same policy as it was a couple of months ago and assuming that the Queensland National Party has not changed it. The policy that the Opposition was running would have added $900m to the deficit and its policy on compulsory training for people on unemployment benefit would add another $600m to the deficit. Indeed it would add some $600m to outlays. It is not possible to cost in any precise way what Mr Peacock is proposing because, if I may use his words again, he said: It's no use making 5 per cent cuts across the board, as the programs roll on. We must cut out the big-ticket items. When we take office- honourable senators should note the words `when we take office'- there will be howls of protest as we cut program after program. Senator Withers —Hear, hear! Senator WALSH —Senator Withers says `Hear, hear!' I draw his attention to the fact that Mr Peacock said: `When we take office there will be howls of protest as we cut program after program'. In other words what the Opposition intends to do is to ambush and deceive the electorate by not giving it the faintest idea during an election campaign of what the Opposition will do and, having ambushed the electorate during an election campaign, it will bushwack it after the election, knock it on the head and pinch its wallet. That is what the Opposition proposes to do to the electorate. I must say that it will have to improve its act immensely on what it has done in the last couple of weeks before it can get within 10 per cent of being able to implement its policies. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Minister for Finance and follows his interest in dissecting the cost of the Opposition's proposals. I ask: Will the Minister undertake to release in 1987 the Forward Estimates of expenditure for 1987-88 to allow a more informed public debate on the expenditure situation in Australia and the changes which are required in economic policy? I point out to him that that was the procedure which was followed by the Government in 1983, a procedure which it saw as being to its political advantage. Will the Minister, in the interests of a genuine debate on this important area, release those figures this year? Senator WALSH —The Forward Estimates for 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 have already been published. Those Forward Estimates are based on- Senator Michael Baume —You are a phoney. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Baume! Senator WALSH —May I note for the record that that interjection came from the man who used to write prospectuses for Patrick Partners before it went broke and welshed on its debts. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Mr President, the same points of order have to be taken on Senator Walsh time and again. The Opposition regards it as utterly offensive that he should continue in this way and I ask you to- Senator Button —It is pretty offensive to the widows of Patrick Partners. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney —Mr President, you are being aided in your task by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who is repeating a matter which has been the subject of plenty of explanation in this place and an official inquiry. Senator WALSH —Which found him guilty. Senator Chaney —The interjection is completely out of line and, since it is a reflection on an honourable senator, I ask you to ask both the Minister and the Leader of the Government to withdraw their comments. The PRESIDENT —This is a matter on which my predecessor ruled on a number of occasions. I will make the same ruling. I therefore ask Senator Walsh to withdraw. Senator WALSH —Withdraw what, Mr President? The PRESIDENT —Withdraw the comments that you made about Senator Michael Baume. Senator WALSH —That he used to write prospectuses for Patrick Partners? I am quite happy to withdraw that comment if he gives an assurance that he did not write prospectuses for Patrick Partners. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Walsh to withdraw unreservedly. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I also took a point of order on the Leader of the Government in the Senate who, by interjection, made a more direct offensive reference. I ask that he withdraw it. The PRESIDENT —I did not hear the remarks made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Button —I made no reference to Senator Baume in what I said, Mr President: I referred to Patrick Partners. If he sees a connection between himself and Patrick Partners I suppose he will see the comment applying to him. But, Mr President, if it is your wish that I withdraw, I do. The PRESIDENT —Senator Button, I ask that you withdraw and this ruling is in accordance with previous rulings that have been made. Senator Button —Yes, I do so. Senator Michael Baume —Mr President, I raise a point of order. During the exchange mention was made of an inquiry. The comment was made from the Government side-it was quite audible on this side of the chamber-`and it found him guilty'. That statement is blatantly and disgracefully untrue. The inquiry, on the contrary, specifically exempted me from any areas of criticism of the behaviour of that partnership. It specifically found me not guilty. It is disgraceful for Senator Walsh or anyone else on the Government side so to corrupt the Senate and to corrupt the truth that he would maintain this fiction in this totally improper and, I might say, grossly insulting way. I seek the withdrawal of that interjection. The PRESIDENT —Senator Baume, this is not a point of order under standing order 418 because Senator Walsh has already withdrawn. It could be a matter of personal explanation at the end of Question Time. Senator Michael Baume —Mr President, I raise a point of order. He at no stage withdrew the remark `and found him guilty'. I ask that to be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —If Senator Baume insists, Senator Walsh will you withdraw that remark? Senator WALSH —I withdraw it, Mr President, and I will also bring-as soon as I can find it in my office; I have just moved-a copy of an extract from the Masterman report. The PRESIDENT —There is no qualification. Will you withdraw, Senator Walsh? Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr President. A moment ago I had to ask Senator Gareth Evans what the question was and he could not remember either. The question asked why the Government would not publish the Forward Estimates, or words to that effect. The fact is that the Government has published the Forward Estimates for the next two financial years. This Government is not into doing what the discredited former Treasurer used to do, and that is to tell the public in late February of 1983 that the prospective deficit was $6 billion when the Treasury had already told him that it was nearly $10 billion. The former Treasurer decided that he would consciously deceive the electorate in the last week before the election and feed it false information. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Again that is an offensive statement about a member of parliament and it is not true, as is evidenced by the actual deficit, by the Government's reduction in the Forward Estimates and by the additional items of expenditure the Government incurred. It is offensive to make the statements that were made about the Leader of the Opposition by the Minister. I ask that the reference to Mr Howard be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —I will ask the Minister to withdraw because the reference was a reflection on a member of another House. Senator WALSH —I withdraw, Mr President, but the record speaks for itself. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the Government's introduction of a fairer taxation system in Australia. Is the Minister aware of claims made by Senator Messner, the Opposition's tax spokesman, in June of last year that the capital gains tax would remove the incentive for shareholders to sell shares purchased before 19 September 1985, which was the commencement date for the capital gains tax? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether there has been a reduction in the volume and value of shares traded on stock exchanges in 1986? Have investors in the share market been deterred by the capital gains tax? Senator WALSH —Senator Messner, last June, I think it was, stopped doodling for long enough to make a prediction about the effect of capital gains tax. He stated: The long term effect of that- I interpolate, capital gains tax- is likely to be a stiffening-up in the market-place-financial arthritis, if you like-with people hanging onto their assets to avoid paying a capital gains tax. I realise that Senator Messner was trying to vilify the Government's tax reform policy, of course, but it is hard to believe that a chartered accountant, which I understand he is-or was-could be so silly as to suggest that a capital gains tax would stop people seeking a profit if they thought they could get a profit through the sale of shares. However, leaving that aside and moving on from prophecy and hypothesis, we now have some empirical evidence on this matter. It was summarised quite well, I believe, in an article in the Australian Financial Review of 8 January which, among other things, stated: Last year's bull run on the stock market increased the turnover in shares by 78 per cent . . . I repeat: It increased the turnover in shares by 78 per cent. So it is a pretty well lubricated case of financial arthritis, with a 78 per cent increase in turnover in shares. The report continued: . . . pushing the value of all shares traded last year to $40,051 million. It also reported that the volume of securities traded in 1986 had increased by 54 per cent from $15.5m to nearly $24m. It should be noted for the record that there will almost inevitably be some double counting in those figures, or even multiple counting, as the same particular share changed hands more than once. Nevertheless, the enormous increase in both the volume of share trading and the value of shares traded proved beyond all doubt that Senator Messner's predictions about the effect of the capital gains tax on share trading were, to say the least, wildly exaggerated. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 18 February, from Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The urgent need for a Mini Budget to reverse the disastrous Hawke government policies that have produced high interest rates, huge increases in the price of essential items such as the family car, the highest tax burden in Australia's peace time history and a crippling foreign debt.' Yours sincerely, (Fred Chaney) Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.03) —On behalf of the Opposition, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The urgent need for a Mini Budget to reverse the disastrous Hawke government policies that have produced high interest rates, huge increases in the price of essential items such as the family car, the highest tax burden in Australia's peace time history and a crippling foreign debt. Question Time has just concluded. It is not surprising, when one looks at the state of this country, that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who will respond to this motion, tries to hide behind personal vilification and abuse, because he has very little to say that is relevant to the problems that are driving people away from his Government in droves and the problems that are making Australia a place which is full not of hope but, rather, of hopelessness. The people that Senator Walsh is supposed to represent have been priced out of housing by the interest rate policies that his Government has introduced and enforced. People cannot afford to buy a car because of the price changes of motor vehicles and the interest rates they will have to pay if they are purchasing a car. People have steeply rising food bills and little prospect of increased income to cover those bills. Crippling taxes have been imposed on individuals at levels which are far higher than they have been in the past, and new taxes are being introduced to reduce incentive and discourage general activity. We have high interest payments on any major household purchase. We have much more costly petrol, although the world price of oil has dropped very significantly since this Government came to power. There are record numbers of bankruptcies in Australia and continuing high unemployment-far higher than was experienced under the Fraser Government. We have low levels of investment. Of course, it is investment that would do something to solve the unemployment problems that afflict Australia. And we have fragile industries that are hanging on by their fingernails in the economic circumstances that the Government has imposed. I suggest that Minister Walsh, rather than vilifying members of the House, should talk to some of the people who are in the car industry, who are trying to sell cars in Australia and who have seen such a major part of their market disappear and ask them how interested they are in the sort of rubbish we have had to put up with in the Senate today, as against some solutions to the problems that this Government has imposed on the Australian people. The fact is that the Government has lost the confidence of the Australian electorate. All the surveys show that the Government has minority support and, with or without the assistance of the Premier of Queensland-and it looks as though we will have his assistance-we will sweep this Government from office. I think it is quite clear, from whatever source one looks at, that the Liberal and National parties have majority support in this country. That is because of the policies that have been imposed by this Government and the failure of Ministers such as Minister Walsh to be prepared to face up to their failures and do something about them. This Government is on the nose because the Australian people are simply suffering from the impact of the policies, and the impact of those failed policies can no longer be disguised. We can look at it from any sort of level. I suppose that today the dramatic reminder we have all had of the failures of this Government is the foreign debt figures that have been released. Really, the figures are so bad as to be almost unbelievable. We were given the September quarter figures, and they showed a quarterly increase of 11.2 per cent. In a quarter, our total foreign debt went from $91 billion to $101 billion-an 11 per cent increase in three months. I wonder which Australian believes that we can go on accruing debt at that rate. It is quite clear that the Business Council of Australia does not believe that we can. I think that all of the men and women of Australia who have experienced the effects of this trade imbalance and the effect of the devaluation of the dollar would agree that the Government is facing disaster without being prepared to take action. If one looks at a net figure, an offset of the foreign currency reserves that Australia has, one will see that there has been an increase from $72 billion to $80 billion over that same quarter. That is an increase of over 12 per cent. In the four years since this Government came to office-it has had this economy supposedly under its control for four years-net foreign debt has increased 3 1/2 times. That single statistic tells us a great deal about the failures of the Hawke Government. This problem does not have a single solution. A great deal needs to be done. But the Opposition has steadily and regularly pointed out the alternative way-the way that we can get Australia moving again, the way that we can restore some incentive in Australia so that there are some productivity increases, and the way that we can start to climb up. What we have is a government which is saying to the people of Australia: `We will help you climb down'. If one looks at the Budget which was introduced in the Senate by Senator Walsh, one will find that it states quite clearly that it is a Budget concerned with trimming the living standards of Australians. Senator Walsh has said over and over again: `Well, that is what has to be done. We have to reduce the living standards of Australians'. The Government is doing nothing to turn that around and to say to the Australian people that there really is some light at the end of the tunnel. I make it clear that the Opposition is not saying that there is some single golden key that one can turn to solve all the problems that Australia has. But last July we set down in a document called `Policies for Business' what we saw as the broad requirements for economic recovery in Australia. We did that before the Budget. We made it quite clear to the Government what had to be done if the Australian situation was to be improved. Our broad requirements were these: We said that the Government needed to reduce and restructure taxes and that that had to be made possible by reduced government spending. That is one leg of a four-legged chair-reduced taxes, underpinned by reduced government spending. There must be reduced and less costly regulation of business activity. Attention must be paid to the disastrous state of industry relations in Australia, with the restoration of the rule of law, a flexible labour market and a reduction in trade union power. Lastly, there must be rigorous control and reduction of business input costs, especially government taxes and charges. The policy goes on in much more detail to spell out a vast array of things that need to be tackled if we are to turn Australia around. It goes from improving the education system to changing Australian attitudes. But we made it quite clear when the Government brought in its Budget in August that we did not believe that it was a satisfactory response to Australia's problems. In September last, only about a month after the Budget was passed, we carried a motion in this Senate asking for a mini-Budget to be brought in that year. In that motion we had the support of the Australian Democrats. The Senate passed a motion as long ago as 17 September 1986 calling for a mini-Budget containing measures to restore confidence in the Australian economy. Mr Jim Carlton, the shadow Treasurer, repeated that call in December, and the Business Council of Australia in a document issued yesterday made it quite clear that it believed that the present budgetary settings of the Government are simply inadequate. It is interesting to see what the chief executives of the 50 largest companies in Australia have come forward with in the way of an analysis of Australia's problems. The analysis fits squarely with the views that the Opposition has been putting forward in a positive way demanding change from this Government. The Business Council pointed out that Australia, as a rich country with a skilled population, ought to be able to look forward to a prosperous economic future as we go into the 1990s. But that depends on how we deal with our external imbalance and rapidly growing foreign debt. The Business Council pointed out that those same elements of policy that we identified last July have to be attacked. Something has to be done about protective and regulatory policies, the industrial relations system, reducing regulation and cutting back sharply on the public sector. All these things which were identified by the Opposition last July are reflected in the document issued yesterday by the Business Council. The important and central point we want to make today is that one essential element of tackling the problems of Australia is to do something about Government expenditure, not next August but now, so that the Government can tackle these other things like the crippling taxes which are being imposed on individuals and businesses and something about the interest rates which are also crippling Australian individuals and industries. Since Senator Button, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, was prepared to quote the Sydney Morning Herald in his aid yesterday in Question Time, let me refer to the Australian Financial Review of the same date whose editorial said: . . . the Government's fiscal and wage policy is not tight enough. It should take urgent action on both fronts by bringing down a mini-Budget in May and by revising its submission to the National Wage case. There is a clear unanimity of view, it would appear, everywhere but on the Government benches that action is required now in the shape of a mini-Budget; some clear movement on the expenditure front if we are to do anything about interest rates, the tax burden, and the issues which are grinding the men and women of Australia into the dust. The sad fact is that the Government is locked in by its trade union mates to not acting in these vital areas, particularly on the labour market front. All I can say is that now that the Government's supposed mates in the Australian Council of Trade Unions have deserted it in the current national wage case, perhaps it is time that it took its courage in both hands and started to govern Australia for the benefit of all Australians, instead of for the benefit of the trade union movement. Let me touch on some of the essential elements of suburban and country life in Australia to show how badly this Government has affected the normal lives of our people. The evidence of this Government's failure is everywhere to be seen in those areas I mentioned in opening this debate-whether one looks at the cost of cars and their inaccessibility to so many Australians now, at prices, interest rates, housing, or whatever. On the subject of cars, one of my colleagues said to me: `Do you think a car is really an essential in Australia?' If one looks around the Australian community, I think one would say that there are probably two major items that are essential to the sort of life that is enjoyed by most Australians. One is decent accommodation, and the other is a car. They would be the major capital items that are part of normal life in Australia. Since this Government came into office the price of a standard motor vehicle in this country has changed enormously. Take the sort of car that I drive in Canberra, a Laser, a car made here in Australia by the Ford Motor Co. In May 1984, a year after this Government came into office, the price of a Laser standard model was under $8,000. What is the price of a Laser today? It is over $12,000. In other words, in those few years since May 1984 the price of that small vehicle has increased by 53 per cent. I suppose somebody will say that such a car is a luxury and so on, but many Australians see it as an essential part of their life and its price has risen by 53 per cent in those few years. The price of a Corona has gone up by 43 per cent, the Commodore by 42 per cent, and the Falcon by 33 per cent. All those things impact very directly on every Australian family. Then there are the poor devils who are employed in the car industry and who have now seen, because of price pressures and items such as the fringe benefits tax, a collapse of the motor vehicle market, the loss of 150,000 sales, the loss of jobs in the retail industry. There was a dramatic drop of activity in that area. It is an economic problem in the macro sense; it is a personal problem for every man, woman and child in Australia. Let us look at associated matters and take petrol prices. Petrol prices again impinge on the lives of every Australian directly and indirectly. In the first three months of 1983 the average price for petrol in this country was 44c. Under this Government in the last three months of 1986 the average price was 55.5c. One can say that that is not too great a rise and that the price has only risen from 44c to 55c in that three-year period. But the fact is that in that time world oil prices virtually halved. In other words, while the rest of the world saw the price of oil drop by half, we saw petrol prices going up and up and up, after the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had promised to reduce the price of petrol-another wonderful Labor promise! Why has the price of petrol gone up? It has gone up because the tax take of this Government under excise has trebled from 6c to 18c-in fact, probably by more than that since the last indexation. The men and women of Australia are simply being milked dry by this Government, their pockets are being lightened and their lives made a misery. Let us look at interest rates. I can remember sitting in this chamber and listening to Senator Walsh complain about interest rates and talking about the simplistic views of Liberals and Nationals. Do honourable senators remember the lectures he used to give the then Minister for Finance, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, on her failure to understand that interest rates were not just a function of the deficit? I do not know what Senator Walsh's analysis will be this afternoon, but when we lost office in 1983 the prime commercial rate was 14 per cent, and in February 1987 it is 18.25 per cent. Every business in Australia is being crushed by that interest rate which is so totally out of line-- Senator Walsh —But that was years ago. Senator CHANEY —I am delighted if Senator Walsh can prove his point about deficits. I am asking what the Minister intends to do about the interest rates which are crushing Australian consumers, whether individuals or businesses. Bankcard interest has gone from 18 per cent to 22 per cent, overdrafts under $100,000 from 13.5 per cent to 18 or 20 per cent, and the interest rate on personal loans has risen from under 10 per cent to 20 per cent. That is the record of this Government on interest rates and what does the Government intend to do about it? I turn to the subject of housing. How many times when we were in government did we sit and listen to people like Senator Grimes telling us about the hardship people suffered if they did not have access to decent affordable housing? That is a serious social comment-a point made over and over again by Labor speakers when they were in opposition. We hear nothing of it today. We find that the cost of home ownership in Australia has steadily risen under this Government. The cost of buying one's home has gone up since the June quarter of 1985-not very long ago-from taking 22.3 per cent of average income to 26 per cent of average income. In other words, the burden of high interest is steadily eating into the disposable income of Australian families. A lot of them cannot afford to buy a house; a lot more of them are losing their houses; and those that are not losing their houses find themselves financially strapped. Of course they are financially strapped. They are paying higher taxes; higher mortgage rates; their disposable income is dropping; they are paying more for their motor vehicles and their petrol; and so it goes. That is the pattern that this Government has imposed on the Australian community and it has no remedies. There is no suggestion that this Government is acting to reverse those trends. That is why we in the Opposition are demanding that there should be action by this Government in the form of a mini-Budget as one of the essential steps that needs to be taken. Let us remember the Labor attitude to unemployment. When Labor was in Opposition it lectured the Fraser Government over and over again about the evils of unemployment, the social misery it caused, the destruction of lives and how bad it was to have economic policies that did nothing about unemployment. Let me quote from the Australian Financial Review because it pointed out the harsh facts a few days ago. Let me quote not a politician but the Australian Financial Review. It said: . . . the harsh fact remains that during the 86 months of the Fraser Government, only five months returned a higher unemployment figure than the monthly rates we have experienced since July last year. The unemployment situation under the Fraser Government averaged 5.8 per cent. We thought that that was bad and needed to be improved. Senator Walsh and his colleagues continually complained about an unemployment rate that averaged 5.8 per cent under us. The average unemployment rate under Labor has been 8.7 per cent. In other words, the bad situation that Labor complained about under Fraser has got worse by nearly 50 per cent. That is a further part of the record of this Government and it is why we again say that it is time for action and not a time simply for more platitudes. We want employment and that means that we want investment. The last thing that I have time to refer to is the fact that not only do we have a record number of bankruptcies under this Government but we have a situation in which fixed capital expenditure which will produce jobs for the men and women of Australia is continually declining. Under this Government we have seen a continuous decline in capital expenditure year by year. This is a serious matter. The Opposition has put forward what needs to be done and this Government has refused to act. I ask the Senate to support this motion. I close by saying that I believe that Treasurer Keating will make a lot of money when he leaves this Parliament because what I have been able to point out in the last 20 minutes shows what a disaster he has made of the economy; yet he managed to sell himself as the world's greatest Treasurer. What a laugh! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.23) —It has been observed in recent days-including, among others, by many members of the Opposition-that the Premier of Queensland has a record which is diametrically opposed to his rhetoric. We have just seen a demonstration of the same phenomenon by Senator Chaney. One thing that Senator Chaney said is true. Australia has severe economic problems, the most severe that we have had since the 1930s, and as a consequence in the short term there is no responsible alternative to a decline in average living standards. That is true. I will explain some of the reasons in a moment why this has happened. The response to that fact, according to Senator Chaney, is to reduce government expenditure. I do not know whether the Australian Democrats will have the audacity to put forward that proposition as well because, as they never cease to remind us almost all the time they are voting, or voting by themselves in particular, they are voting to increase government expenditure. I will listen with interest to see how Senator Haines deals with this matter. Senator Chaney, for the Opposition, says that government expenditure must be reduced, as does Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. But let us look at what the Opposition is actually advocating. It is advocating that the tax deductible Mercedes should be brought back; that the tax deductible boozy lunch should be brought back; that pensions should be paid to millionaires; that what it euphemistically calls incentives to invest in collectables instead of production should be brought back; and that there should be flatter tax with a maximum rate apparently of 35 cents in the dollar-a list of propositions which collectively would blow out the Budget deficit to about $10 billion. All those factors that I have mentioned would aggravate the current account deficit which is the most critical problem we currently face. The Opposition proposes as savings options the modification of Medicare, with an opting out provision. The people who would opt out of paying the levy, of course, would be the young, the fit and the healthy. The consequence of implementing that policy would be to blow out the deficit by another $900m. The Opposition also proposes as an expenditure cut making three days a week training compulsory for people who receive unemployment benefits. That would add $600m to both outlays and the deficit. So the policies that those opposite advocate are in total contradiction to the rhetoric that pours out of their mouths. They have identified so far $32m of expenditure cuts while simultaneously promising almost $1 billion in increased expenditure. (Quorum formed) I can understand Senator Michael Baume's reluctance to have the facts about this matter revealed. The one true statement that Senator Chaney made was that the Australian economy is confronted with very severe problems. Indeed, he could have added correctly that they are the most severe problems since the 1930s. That is attributable to a variety of reasons. Most of all it is attributable to many decades of neglect and mismanagement-in the 1950s and 1960s by the pernicious manipulations of the then Country Party Leader McEwen; in the Labor Government interregnum it is freely acknowledged that that Government's economic management policies were fallible; and then many years of culpable neglect under the Fraser, Howard duumvirate. The Business Council of Australia, in the report to which Senator Chaney has already referred, attributed our problems to: The stifling impact of industry protection and business regulations on management attitudes, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Inhibition of a `common sense of purpose between employee and employer caused by a central arbitral system based on adversarial relationships'. That is exactly the sort of attitude of mind that was encouraged and exploited by the Fraser-Howard Government. The BCA continued: Reliance on overseas borrowings caused by a resources boom. Again, this was directly attributable to the Fraser- Howard years when the Fraser-Howard duumvirate launched a free-for-all for the States in overseas borrowings for the resources boom which never happened, the hangover of which is with us still. The BCA went on: A wages boom in the early 1980s that further eroded Australian competitiveness at a crucial time. We know about that-an 11 per cent increase in wages in 1981 and 14 per cent in 1982. That was the legacy which we inherited. Not until the election of this Government had any government attempted to redress the structural defects of the Australian economy. So for long-standing historical reasons the economy is in trouble and superimposed upon that weak base is an export price collapse which has taken $5 billion or $6 billion off our national income. The consequence of all that is that there is no responsible alternative to a decline in average real disposable incomes in the short term. The response of the Opposition, however, and its leader in particular, is to promise big increases in after tax income by introducing lower rates of tax and flatter tax. He furiously peddles the illusion that in these circumstances average living standards can rise. That is the opposite of the truth. Howard is performing an act of social and economic sabotage as dangerous and irresponsible as anything that George Crawford or his ilk could ever aspire to. Everyone knows that the Queensland Premier proposes to cure economic ills with snake oil. Less well known fortunately, and to some extent because of the Queensland Premier, but becoming better known is that John Howard and the Opposition have also been pushing snake oil, albeit a slightly watered down version of that which is being dispensed by the cargo cultist from the Deep North. I refer to a table that was published in today's Age, based on information from Professor Porter's Centre of Policy Studies, which, for this purpose, should be an impeccable source because this outfit is one of the Liberal Party's private economic analysts. It did $1m worth of economic research for the Liberal Party. Senator Chaney —I thought that you had just dumped them. You just withdrew their funding. Why are you quoting them? Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney interjects. Perhaps I should respond by pointing out that Professor Porter is another great advocate of reduced public expenditure. Indeed, he says that some $9 billion should be cut from public expenditure. I did a little exercise on this. Professor Porter had his grant of $500,000 cut. He has complained so long and loud that in the last couple of days his complaints have filled up a total of 18 million pages of broadsheet print. A total of 18 million pages of broadsheet print has been used reporting Professor Porter's complaints about the loss of $0.5m, yet he wants $9 billion cut off public expenditure. If every $0.5m were to produce so much complaint and the consumption of so much paper reporting those complaints, 324 billion pages of broadsheet newsprint would be required-that means about 20 million tonnes of newsprint. Some of that would be imported and we would have to add that to the current account deficit as well. The analysis that Professor Porter's organisation put up shows that the Liberal Party proposed to cut direct tax receipts by $10.5 billion which would be partly offset by indirect tax receipts of $4,800m, leaving a credibility gap of the order of $6 billion. But since that happened the National Party has vetoed the value added tax which the Liberal Party planned to introduce. So the Liberal Party is now left with a credibility gap, not of $6 billion but of $10 billion because the National Party has vetoed the VAT that the Liberal Party proposed to introduce. The Liberal Party has weakly complied with that directive from the Deep North. In addition, the Opposition has promised to increase expenditure in various ways by about another $1 billion and simultaneously to eliminate the deficit. If it is not too horrible it might be worth spending a couple of minutes speculating about government in Australia under a non-Labor successor to this Government. It would go something like this: We have two alternatives as Prime Minister at the moment-Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Mr Howard. If Sir Joh could become Prime Minister something like this would happen: Senior bureaucrats would be called together and he would say: `Flat tax, flat tax, we are going to have flat tax'. The senior bureaucrats would say: `But Prime Minister, if we introduce your flat tax policy we will have a deficit of $16 billion'. He would say: `Don't you worry about that. That will be all right'. The Treasury would then attempt to sell $16 billion worth of government securities, as a result of which interest rates would rise to something like 30 or 40 per cent. Sir Joh would then call in his senior bureaucrats and say: `Interest rates have to come down'. Then someone would tell him, probably a member of his white shoe brigade, that if the Treasury were to cease trying to sell $16 billion worth of government securities-in other words, run an unfunded deficit-then interest rates would fall. So they would for a while until hyperinflation caught up with us. That is the scenario with Sir Joh. The scenario under Mr Howard would go something like this: (Quorum formed) As I was saying, the scenario under Mr Howard would go like this: Senior public servants would meet Mr Howard and explain to him that the policy commitments, particularly on the tax side, which he had given and which the National Party had modified, would cause the deficit to blow out to $10 billion. Mr Howard would say: `Don't you worry about that. We had that before when I was Treasurer'. That is the scenario under Howard, a $10 billion deficit, while under Bjelke-Petersen it would be a $16 billion deficit. I make those points for the very important reason that they draw attention to the fact that the difference between Howard and Bjelke-Petersen is a difference of degree only. It is a difference of degree of fiscal irresponsibility-the difference between a $10 billion deficit and a $16 billion deficit. Some people might feel sorry for Mr Howard, and in my more charitable moments even I do, for this reason: He is under simultaneous and permanent attack from both the responsible Right-that is, the John Hyde group-and the ratbag Right, personified in the media by people such as Katharine West and Des Keegan and in general by the rednecks of the Queensland National Party, most prominent among whom, of course, is the Premier. Senator Chaney gave us a rather boring recitation about the alleged faults of this Government but, since he has brought that in, I might give a concise and highly relevant recitation of the faults of John Howard as Treasurer and, in particular, the big trifecta that John Howard brought in when we had double figure inflation, double figure unemployment and more than double figure wage increases. The big trifecta which John Howard brought in and which no Treasurer in history had ever done at the same time was to have inflation above 10 per cent, unemployment above 10 per cent and wages growth above 10 per cent. In the end, of course, he presided over the worst recession the country has seen since the 1930s. I want to take up two other points which were raised by Senator Chaney. Firstly, he said that for only five months of the Fraser Government was the unemployment rate higher than it has been on average under this Government. Senator Chaney —That is not what I said. Senator WALSH —He said something like that. Something like that is true. It is also meaningless, because it happens to be a fact that for every month of the Whitlam Government the unemployment rate was lower than it was on average under the Fraser Government. In other words, the point there is that such figures are affected by the base which one inherits, and the base which we inherited from the Howard treasurership period was an unemployment rate of some 10 1/2 per cent. The second point was that Senator Chaney asked the rhetorical question: Is a car essential? He then spoke about the fringe benefits tax. To the extent, if any, to which motor vehicle sales have fallen because of the fringe benefits tax, it demonstrates that there was no functional economic need for the purchase of those vehicles in the first place. In other words, the spending on business vehicles which fell into that category was consumption spending misdefined as investment. It is that sort of distortion of the tax system, misallocation of investible resources and distortion of investment decisions that has helped to get this country into its present plight. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.43) —The urgency motion which is being debated in the Senate today and which was moved by Senator Chaney mentions the urgent need for a mini-Budget to reverse the disastrous Hawke Government policies that have produced high interest rates, huge increases in the prices of essential items such as the family car, the highest tax burden in Australia's peacetime history and a crippling foreign debt. The Australian Democrats will be supporting this urgency motion when it is put to the vote, although we do so despite the fact that we think Senator Chaney has displayed a certain amount of effrontery in moving it, given that the Opposition apparently has no tax policy, does not look like having a tax policy in the near future and therefore does not have much of an economics policy overall. However, it seems to be chugging along, notwithstanding that, with a bit of input from the unguided missile from Queensland. On one point that Senator Chaney has included here, it seems to me that the cost of running the family car is far more of an ongoing problem to most Australian families than the purchase price, largely thanks to the fact that the Fraser Government's import parity pricing and excise legislation means that something like 20c per litre of fuel sold in this country goes straight back to the Government. Yes, we think there should be a mini-Budget. It certainly could not make matters any worse but, to satisfy us and to correct the problems that have been listed by the Opposition in the urgency motion, we think changes have to be made in areas quite different from those suggested by Senator Chaney. At least, we think those changes should be in different areas if the aim of the game is to give some relief of the tax burden faced by ordinary Australian families. Despite the Opposition's rhetoric, I am not sure that the process outlined by Senator Chaney lives up to that rhetoric. From some of the points raised it seems to be quite the reverse; that is, the Opposition's solution seems to be to go back to an inequitable tax system where fringe benefits, to all intents and purposes, are not taxed and neither, again, to all intents and purposes, are most capital gains. Wage and salary earners will be bearing the brunt of the tax burden, not those who are far better off. What is more, like the current Labor Government, this Opposition when it was in government supported a situation in which ordinary Australian families faced effectively far higher interest rates and therefore far higher repayment burdens than the business community did, for the simple reason that business interest rates are taxpayer subsidised because they are tax deductions whereas ordinary Australian families would well know that in this country borrowings, even on mortgages, are not. Like the current Government, the Opposition still supports a number of inequitable areas in the Australian taxation system. It still supports, for example, negative gearing on overseas financed takeover bids, despite the fact that from all this comes not one extra job in this country and no increase in productivity, and that the only beneficiaries from the exercises are a few already wealthy individuals who are able to accumulate yet more valuable assets at public expense. If that is the Opposition's definition of equality, it certainly is not mine. It is not indeed, either, helping one of the matters that were raised in the urgency motion-that is, Australia's crippling foreign debt-since well over half of that foreign debt is owed by the private sector and much of it comes from the foreign funds which are borrowed to allow those sorts of share raids. Is this equity? I do not think so. It certainly is not helping lower our foreign debt about which Senator Chaney is so concerned. What does the Opposition have to offer those families in suburbia or rural Australia? It offers increased consumption taxes apparently-taxes which fall most heavily, as we all know, on low income earners and families with dependent children. Indeed, it was with some horror that we watched the Opposition, to a person, in this chamber support Labor's sales taxes on things such as fruit juices, some milk products and wines not only in last year's Budget but also in the 1984 Budget. What does that do to families with small children, particularly in the case of fruit juices and milk products? It certainly is not of any assistance to rural Australia where the citrus growing industry, the grape growing industry, small wine makers and dairy farmers are facing increasing burdens, increasing problems and an increasing chance of being pushed into bankruptcy and out of business. I was fascinated to hear Mr Sinclair on the Carleton-Walsh Report last night and again on AM this morning talking about how the National Party will not sit back and allow people in rural Australia to be hurt by any increased taxes or by change to the tax system. He pontificated at some length about the increased burden to people in rural areas because of the freight component in sales tax. We heartily concur with his concern in that area. We ask, then, why Mr Sinclair and all of his National Party colleagues have sat back and ignored a private member's Bill of the Australian Democrats which has been on the Notice Paper for the last five years and which would have removed the freight component of sales taxes. So either Mr Sinclair does not know what is going on or, as is usual, the Opposition is counting on the fact that the Australian public is basically relatively ignorant when it comes to economic matters and certainly the processes of the Parliament. In amongst all the rhetoric that has come from everybody-from Joh Bjelke-Petersen up or down, depending on where one places Bjelke-Petersen in the scheme of things-nobody has bothered to tell us how, with all the sorts of tax cuts that have been talked about, we are going to pay for the roads, the hospitals and the schools which are needed by Australian families, much less the defence forces which I would have thought were necessary for the safety and security of Australia as a whole. Having said that, I would agree with Senator Chaney that there is no doubt that Australia is in the midst of an economic crisis. Just who got us there and how we are going to get out of it is, of course, a matter of considerable contention. Part of the problem has been that we have relied historically on the export of agricultural and mineral commodities. We have operated a most uncompetitive manufacturing sector which has been highly protected and has come to depend on that protection. There has been no incentive for manufacturers to make themselves more efficient or develop export markets in the way that, for example, Japan did after the Second World War. During the coalition governments of the late 1970s and the early 1980s, levels of industry protection in Australia actually increased at a time when we can all see now quite the reverse should have been occurring with incentives being given for those industries to develop in the export area in order to take over from the agricultural and mineral exports which were declining. The collapse of Australia's terms of trade, the balance of payments problem and the consequent collapse of the dollar is certainly a very large component of the problem that we are now facing. But I think we have to remember that there is no quickie solution. We cannot get through this crisis, the confusion in the Australian economy, by producing a solution in 25 words or less, whether it is a flat tax system or the Opposition's idea of solving all the problems of the Western world by getting rid of Australia's fringe benefits and capital gains tax systems. It simply is not as simple as that. Okay, we accept the fact that there are measures that the Government can and must take. But we need to recognise that very few of them are going to be overnight successes or overnight solutions. We have a balance of payments that is currently running at an annual rate of a $15 billion deficit. That accumulated deficit is now so great that, according to the figures that we have been able to get out of the system, we require something in excess of $700m in overseas earnings just to pay off the interest bill, and that is an appalling indictment not only of the behaviour of this Government but of the behaviour of previous governments. We need obviously to encourage overseas investment in order that the investment coming into the country compensates for the money that, of course, still must go out if we are to purchase imports. But it is not the perfect solution and we have to look at more sensible ways of overcoming some of the problems that we have brought on ourselves. The situation, of course, is compounded by the fact that the interest bill on borrowings for the sorts of unproductive takeovers that I was talking about a moment ago is still tax deductible and, to that extent, the tax rates for corporations like the Bell Group Ltd, Elders IXL, the Bond Corporation Pty Ltd and so on are reduced to levels well below what the average Australian family pays. I do not think those families are impressed by the front page stories in the Sydney Morning Herald or stories in Australian Business, if they read them, that indicate that some of the biggest companies in this country are paying 10c in the dollar or less in income tax at a time when the average Australian family is paying at least twice and often three times that. The last round of media takeovers in which share prices were pushed in one instance to 170 times earnings is the most recent illustration of just how idiotic the current taxation incentive system is in this area. Therefore, we are going to have to look at changes to those sorts of incentives-incentives which currently encourage some of Australia's largest superannuation and life funds to invest off-shore. Why not leave them with a tax incentive, but give them that incentive only if they invest in Australia in areas which are labour intensive. The building industry, for example, is a classic case. Give our companies tax incentives where necessary but give it to them in such a way that productivity is increased and that jobs are increased. Give it to them so that we as a country benefit, not just single individuals or single companies. We recognise the fact that most companies argue that the major priority is to get a good return for their investors and, in effect, for their shareholders. We acknowledge that by changing the system in the way that I have suggested, returns on investments may not be as high in the short term as could perhaps be achieved through overseas investment. But in the long term, the pay-off does mean a strong and stable Australian economy. Without such a strong and stable economy in this country there is not going to be any secure retirement for the millions of Australian contributors to, for example, those superannuation funds I have just mentioned. There will not be the sorts of jobs that we need for our young people and there will be no relief from the financial burdens currently facing Australian families. Finally, I just mention that real wages in this country declined by something like 4 per cent in 1986. They are likely to fall even further this year. This in itself is causing dissension and division in the community. Any government, whether it is this one or possibly one formed by the Opposition, which takes a confrontationist approach to industrial relations and seeks further to slash wages and cut back on social services while allowing prices and profits to rocket, is only going to precipitate a level of industrial unrest and a wages break-out which will certainly drive an already unstable economy over the brink, if not down the proverbial S-bend. So all of those who are tempted by the simplistic brief answers of the Messiah from the north and the ideologues of the Right have to bear that in mind. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.58) —First of all, I would just like to correct Senator Walsh's comments about the amount of paper which would be used from computer runs and all the rest of it. Apparently he did not read today's Australian Financial Review which printed the following correction: The Australian Financial Review yesterday reported that the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University headed by Professor Michael Porter had already spent $1m on research for the Liberal Party's yet to be announced tax policy. The article also said that the Centre was responsible for the radical tax models put forward by the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Neither statement is correct. The only funds which the Centre has received from the Liberal Party Secretariat had been about $2,000 for some computer runs. Senator Archer —That is not bad for Walshie though; that is quite close. Senator COLLARD —I could see that the way he was going an awful lot more trees would be cut down in Tasmania to provide the paper that was mentioned in his speech. I say at the outset that this nation has been conditioned to accept disaster. This has been done quite often and quite subtly by this Government. I have to give it top marks for that. It is far better at it than we ever were. Every time a Budget is coming up we get all of the informed leaks and the rest of it beforehand, which conditions the public for something that is going to be terrible. When the Budget comes out it is not as bad as was predicted-even though it is still disastrous-but we seem to accept it. This was brought home to me yesterday when I asked Senator Button a question concerning the current account deficit. In the toing and froing we had throughout his answer he said on page 70 of yesterday's Hansard: The results in November and December were favourable in light of the Budget predictions and in light of predictions by a wide range of experts. The results in January-if Senator Collard wants to hang his Akubra hat on something-were not favourable. In other words, if we have a current account deficit of $1.2 billion it is not favourable but if we have a current account deficit of $600m or $800m it is favourable. Senator Button went on to say: The total current account figure for this 12 months will be below the Budget predictions. As I understand it, the Budget predictions are somewhere in the order of $14 billion or less. That figure represents the amount that this nation is going into debt. In other words, it is acceptable, because of the economic morality of this Labor Government, for us to go into debt at the rate of $1 billion per month. Once again, as I have said, we have been conditioned to accept disaster. Senator Button, in reply to my question, made the point that the experts predicted a bigger current account deficit, which, in round figures, turned out to be $800m for November and $600m for December. But because those figures were not up to expectations they were not all that bad. I just cannot comprehend why the media moguls, the writers, the experts and the money markets can accept that we are going into debt at this rate of knots but, because it is not as bad as was predicted, it is acceptable. It is just like belting one's head against a brick wall for a while, knocking off, and then belting one's head against a timber wall. Because the timber is a little softer it is better. But at the end of the day one would end up with a heck of a headache and that is where this nation is fast heading. Indeed, we have a massive headache and a massive hangover from the profligacy of this Hawke Labor Government. If this country could run on hype and invective there would be no need for a mini-Budget. For some years now the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been providing the hype and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been providing the invective. How many times have we heard these earnest gentlemen say: `Our economy is on track. Everything is as we predicted. Good times are just around the corner'. I put it to honourable senators in this chamber that that corner is fast receding into the distance down the hard times strait. It is not so much that the corner is getting further away but that we are going backwards. We, as a nation and as an economy, are going backwards. There is no doubt about it that the Prime Minister is looking forward to setting a record as the longest serving Labor Prime Minister. I am led to believe that he could achieve that some time in January 1988. We also know that he would like to be the only Labor Prime Minister-God help this country!-to serve for three consecutive terms. He is certainly, at this time, without setting any records in his personal or prime ministerial life, heading a government of records. It is the biggest taxing and the biggest spending government in peacetime history. The Australian dollar is at its lowest level ever. Real and nominal interest rates are at their highest level ever. Australia has the largest stock of foreign debt ever. Australia has the highest current account deficit; even in 1986 it was the worst of any of the Western industrialised countries. Compared with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries Australia has the worst relative inflation rate ever. No wonder the Prime Minister wants to set a record as the longest serving Prime Minister. He is setting records in this economy and in this nation almost every day. All the hype and the invective of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and their representatives in this chamber cannot detract from those pure, plain and simple facts. Ironically, the rest of the world has seen through what is going on; it has seen through this Government's economic performance. The value of the Australian dollar is but a reflection of how the rest of the world's money markets see us. Something that most people do not understand is that the performance of our dollar is seen against the performance of the United States of America dollar. What those people do not understand is that our dollar is set against a falling United States dollar. In other words, its performance is far worse than actually seems to be the case on the surface. Of course, we have seen our credit rating deteriorate. The Euromoney magazine once claimed that Mr Keating was the world's greatest Treasurer. I understand that the previous year it was the Treasurer of Mexico. But even on that high standard the Treasurer is at the bottom of the ladder. Unfortunately, the hype is working a little in Australia. Once again, this Government has been very smart. We see that the wage and salary earners have been slightly protected from the reality of the situation and the Government has done this by two methods: Firstly, the accord. I would be the first to admit that it has reined in the excesses of some of the unions but it still guarantees a wage increase in spite of productivity and in spite of this community's ability to pay. Secondly, we have the housing interest rates which are pegged and which do not bear any relationship to the real market interest rates. So the wage and salary earners are protected by those methods from the harsh reality of this economy. As I said previously, what would normally be seen as a disaster because of the hype, because of the `trust me' and all the rest of it, are seen as great achievements when our current account deficit-bad though it is-does not reach some level that has been predetermined in the minds of people in the financial markets. That current account deficit is increasing at the rate of $1 billion per month-a great achievement! Our total foreign debt from Federation until 1983 was $23 billion. In the short period from 1983 until now we have had an increase to $100 billion. In other words, every man, woman and child in Australia is in debt to the tune of $6,000. Unfortunately, those figures are so large that they just rattle off our tongues-we who are conversant with them-and the people in the street really do not understand what they mean to them. But it does have an effect on everybody and the people of Australia had better realise that the hardships they are now experiencing have been caused by the profligacy and the bad economic management of this nation. In pure and simple terms, big spending means big taxes. Nobody else will provide the money for the Government's big spending other than the people of Australia. Since the Hawke Government came to power in 1983 the total tax take has increased by 61 per cent. Now we have heard much of the trilogy. Part of that trilogy was that tax receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product were not to increase. They have now reached a level of 25.5 per cent. The trilogy required this ratio to be kept at or below the 1984-85 level of 25 per cent. However, the ceiling has been broken by the Government in each of the first two years of the three-year commitment. While these percentage overruns-from 25 per cent to 25.2 per cent and then to 25.5 per cent-may seem small, they amount to increases of over $400m in 1985-86 and a staggering $1.4 billion in 1986-87. The trilogy was not kept, and that has meant a staggering tax increase. Once again we are dealing with big figures, but we can get them down to the fact that an additional $15 a week income tax cut on top of the Keating tax cuts would be required to reduce the income tax burden of a single income family to the level that applied in 1983 when the Hawke Labor Government came to power. The equivalent figure for a single person is an additional $8 a week. Big spending means big taxes, and every taxpayer in Australia is being hurt because of what has been going on. We have mentioned the low value of the Australian dollar. That is one of this Government's other records. The value we are given for the dollar is not even a real value because of what we have termed a `dirty float'. The Government has not let the dollar find its own level and has been propping it up with high interest rates. Our interest rates are far higher than those of any of our trading partners. For instance, even though housing interest rates are pegged, the repayments of a family with a $50,000 loan over a 25-year period have gone up by $152 a month, from $508 to $660, since the last election. I tell the people outside who are experiencing this that those interest rates bear no relationship to the market interest rates; in other words, what businesses, farmers and anybody else are paying. It is no wonder that this bankruptcy rate is going up. A few years ago when people went into business and rightfully sat down with their accountants and budgeted, never in their wildest dreams would they have thought that, in a nation with everything going for it as Australia had-their interest bill would go up to that extent. They have worked their hearts out, they have done everything right; but, because of the actions of this Government, they have gone bankrupt. Our inflation rate is there for all to see. It is four times the average of those of our Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading partners. Some of those are even at a minus rate this year. It was Lenin who said: `The way to crush the bourgeoisie'-in other words, the middle class-`is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation'. Socialism has not changed much over the last few years. There is a very great need for a mini-Budget to right all the wrongs of the economic policies of this Government. The need for a mini-Budget is obvious, but it needs to be more than just a reshuffling of the existing burden. It has to be a statement that addresses the structural problems of the economy. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.13) —The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) has moved an urgency motion on a number of economic issues. We welcome the opportunity to speak about economic policy. Australians have a very clear choice-the stability of this Labor Government against the anarchy of the Opposition that is represented here today. This Government, facing an unparalleled trade war with the major nations of the world-Japan, the European Community and the United States of America-is rallying Australians in the fight and the very hard task ahead for this country. We do not deny that Australia faces a problem. Wage and salary earners in this country, led by the Australian trade union movement, have made many sacrifices to create employment, sharing for the common good, and to make sure that we expand and have growth in this country. The Government, for its part, has turned around the dreaded residue of the Fraser years when tax avoidance and evasion were the order of the day. Despite what Senator Chaney said here today when he criticised our industrial relations situation, the fact is that in Australia today we have the least industrial activity that we have had since 1970. That is the situation that exists in this country. What of the position of the coalition? At this very moment, faceless millionaires from Surfers Paradise and other parts of Australia have moved in on the coalition. The Leader of the Opposition has introduced a series of economic issues that only highlight the Opposition's crisis. The superficial analysis and simplistic slogans that he has given us today show that the Opposition has no program. It was no help, but I am sure that it was significant, that just about every Liberal senator was here to hear his or her Leader today. Even two National Party senators were here. Opposition senators were crowding in like lemmings, facing this thrust from outside, from the extra-parliamentary millionaires who are challenging the leadership of the Liberal Party at this moment. The people of Australia are not fools. They know that John Howard as Treasurer in the Fraser Government presided over a failed tax system, as I have said, under which tax avoiders and evaders escaped. The Fraser-Howard team talked up the resources boom, allowed our manufacturing industry to decline, left office with an inflation rate of 11.5 per cent and presided over the highest unemployment rate since the Depression, with three-quarters of a million people out of work. At the same time, that Government in which Mr Howard was Treasurer was able to slash $2.5 billion off social security expenditure. It is little wonder that today we see in the Bulletin magazine the results of a Morgan poll which show that his approval rating as Leader of the Opposition is 18 per cent. Senator Chaney had the audacity to talk about people being on the nose. How much further on the nose can the Leader of the Opposition get when he is achieving a popularity rate of 18 per cent in an opinion poll? Even the position of Mr Peacock, the failed Leader of the Opposition, looks better. Mr Peacock's position is such that when the Queensland Premier-(Quorum formed) I do not know what I said wrong. I was pointing out that Mr Howard's popularity rate in an opinion poll, the results of which were published this morning, was 18 per cent but that the good news was that Mr Peacock had a popularity rate of 42 per cent. So the situation is not all bad. I think the Queensland Premier might keep him on when he takes over the coalition as part of the coalition's new leadership team. The Opposition is reeling under the onslaught of a sinister campaign funded by extra-parliamentary multimillionaires. That is the problem the Opposition has. It vacillates; it slides all over the place. Senator Collard, who has just concluded his remarks, had the audacity to talk about hype and invective. The Opposition has a hype and invective-led recovery going on at present. Senator Chaney had the audacity to talk about what the Liberal Party would do. The fact is that we are not quite sure what the Liberal Party, the National Party or the coalition might do. If one picks up any of the papers in Australia, one finds that people are speaking for the Liberal Party and the National Party and that the Australian people just cannot work out what they are saying. This morning in the Sydney Morning Herald the headline is: `Sinclair: is he sinking?' That report which deals with the proposal for a consumption tax-last week's policy of the Liberal Party-points out: The draft proposals of the Opposition spokesman on tax, Senator Messner, include a retail turnover tax of about 8 per cent. The article continued: There is now a distinct possibility that the Opposition's support for a retail or consumption tax will be dropped altogether, or be significantly watered down. The article further stated: If the Liberals and the Nationals could not agree on a tax policy, they would go to the election putting separate proposals. That is an indication of the problems that the Liberal and National parties have as a coalition, and it is probably only a matter of days before that coalition falls apart. However, it is even worse than that. I also want to refer to Professor Porter, not in the context he was referred to in the Australian Financial Review but because, in an article in the Age by Russell Barton headed `Opposition needs consumption tax, study finds', it is pointed out that the Age, very quickly and sensibly, accepted Professor Porter's invitation to test alternative tax schemes on the model of the Centre of Policy Studies. That is a bit embarrassing for the coalition. This is what Russell Barton reported: The centre, headed by Professor Michael Porter, yesterday ran the Opposition's draft policy through its computer tax model which it has developed during the past three years and from which it produced the three alternative tax policies unveiled by Professor Porter last week. The computer model showed that the Opposition policy already appears to be about $2 billion short of revenue to meet the cost of the proposed income tax cuts. And that is after including an eight per cent consumption tax . . . So we have utter confusion with Mr Howard, changing daily as he faces the end of his term as Leader of the Opposition, talking about a flatter tax system. I think we need to remind people what the conservative flatter tax and the associated argument about the consumption tax could mean. I would like briefly to remind people what that consumption tax that is referred to in the Age article would mean. Every time a telephone call is made, a heater is switched on, a take-away meal is consumed or medicine is bought a tax of around 8 per cent would be charged, regardless of a person's capacity to pay; and this would be disastrous. That is the very point referred to in Senator Chaney's urgency motion-that huge increases in prices of essential item would hurt ordinary people. Senator Chaney referred to rocketing inflation. Inflation would be grossly increased if we were to have any form of consumption tax. The poorest people in the land would be the people who would be affected by any consumption tax. This is the position that the Liberal Party is presently following through. We know that the National Party has a different view because it is sufficiently realistic to know that such a consumption tax at this moment in history would be a disaster for rural Australia and for provincial cities in Australia. So the National Party will not have a bar of the consumption tax. We do not know-because of the extra-parliamentary forces, the faceless men, who at the moment are dominating the coalition-who will win out. All we can say is that we know that the ultra Right, the fanatics, seem to have the whip hand on the parliamentary Party. Significantly, Senator Collard, a gentlemanly fellow who is always proper in this chamber, has not mentioned that the prime position of the National Party is to oppose the consumption tax. What he said was that he accepted that wage and salary earners should not receive any increases at all in salary at this moment. That is the clear import of what Senator Collard said. I will move from Senator Collard. The Queensland mafia have put out a contract on the coalition. The mafia millionaires have found a new racket; it is the flat tax racket. That is its name and one can forget about the facts. The godfather will sell it, probably in the name of the family, and a simple 25 per cent flat tax is now, as somebody has said, the new snake oil of the National Party and parts of the Liberal Party. In the concluding minutes I have, I point out that four out of five Australians, those who earn less than $520 gross a week, would face an increase in tax under the coalition's financial program. That is a simple fact. For example, someone earning $385 gross a week, or $20,000 a year, would face an increase in tax of $1,158 per year or $22 a week. For someone earning $10,000 a year, or $195 a week, the tax increase is $24 a week. At the other end of the scale are the sorts of people about whom the coalition parties are concerned: A person on $40,000 would gain $770 a week and a person on $100,000 a year, or $2,000 a week, would gain $340 per week. That is what it is all about; that is what the reality is as far as coalition policies are concerned. The coalition is trying to treat the people who fund the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation, the people who will benefit, not the four out of five Australians who will lose out under the coalition's financial program. (Quorum formed) Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.31) —The Senate is debating a motion moved by Senator Chaney in the following terms: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The urgent need for a mini-budget to reverse the disastrous Hawke government policies that have produced high interest rates, huge increases in the price of essential items such as the family car, the highest tax burden in Australia's peacetime history and a crippling foreign debt. We have heard from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in response to Senator Chaney's magnificent speech today. The only substance to Senator Walsh's remarks was his acknowledgment that under the Hawke Government the people of Australia have suffered, and will continue to suffer, a massive reduction in living standards. I acknowledge that he did admit during the course of his speech that Mr Howard had been Treasurer during one of the worst droughts in Australia's history and during a world-wide recession. Of course, that is where it all began, because since then, under the Hawke Labor Government, this country has suffered four years of wasted opportunities. In 1982, when Mr Howard was the Treasurer of this country, Australia was in the grip of a terrible drought and the world was in the middle of a bad recession. The Fraser Government policies to overcome that were, firstly, a wage freeze and, secondly, a deficit jolt to the economy. Senator Walsh would acknowledge, in one of his rare moments of truthfulness to the Parliament, that those policies were the correct ones to bring Australia out of the problems which it then faced. In fact, the policies worked. The world recession was over, the drought broke and this Government came to office at a time when it had marvellous opportunities, thanks to the wage freeze and thanks to the deficit jolt to the economy. But what did it do with those opportunities? It absolutely wasted them. Government back benchers will regret to their dying days that they allowed this Government to go on with this business of high spending and high borrowing. Once the world recession was over, once the drought had broken, and once this country got back on to its feet again, the Government should have got out of the expenditure system. It should have stopped spending all of that money. Senator Walsh will tell honour- able senators opposite that this is so. No doubt he has told Caucus many times that the Government should have stopped wasting the Federal revenue in the way it was doing. It kept borrowing at a time when it should not have continued to borrow, and it kept spending. Now that it is faced with a drop in world commodity prices of our exports, the situation is quite disastrous. I have no doubt that Senator Walsh predicted to Government members in their Caucus room-he would not say it in the Parliament, but no doubt he predicted it to them-that if the Government kept borrowing, this is what might happen. It has happened, and this country is now faced with a disastrous economic situation. Its policies have been exposed as unable to cope with that situation. As I have said, Senator Walsh today admitted that this Government has no policy to cope with the situation, other than to cut living standards. Of course, that has already happened. There has been a massive cut in the living standards of Australians. We can see that that is so-and I will come to that point in a few minutes-by the sorts of prices that people are paying for their goods. But there is an alternative. We must encourage investment in this country. How can we do that? The first thing we must do is to lower interest rates. We must allow interest rates to come down to a reasonable figure. The first step in doing that is to reduce government expenditure. This motion of Senator Chaney's is all about reducing government expenditure. That is the first step in bringing interest rates back to a moderate level within this country. If the Government does not bring down a mini-Budget, if it does not cut government expenditure, interest rates will remain extraordinarily high and the investment that should take place in this country will not take place. A mini-Budget is the first step. The Business Council of Australia called for it yesterday. We started calling for it last September. When we saw the Budget which the Government produced for this country, it became obvious within weeks of that Budget being handed down that Budget expenditure was still too high, notwithstanding the purported cuts which the Government had stated in its Budget that it would implement, and which will not occur because it will overrun its Budget deficit. That is the first step. The second step would be to keep the level of wages growth down to that of our trading partners. Again, the Government will not do that. It will not stand up to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It will give in to it again. The Government is talking about having a $10 wage increase. The ACTU is saying that in no way will it agree to a $10 wage increase. It must have a minimum $20 wage increase. So the accord has gone for a burton and the level of wages growth, instead of being kept down to that of our trading partners, will be allowed to continue to rise. That second step would reduce demand and inflation without choking off investment. That is what this Government is doing at present; it is absolutely choking off opportunities for business people to invest in this country. The Government should be cutting business taxes, instead of which it is raising them. It is raising the corporate tax rate to 49 per cent, and it has imposed the fringe benefits tax on business people in this country. If the Government wants to go further, why does it not have a good look at restrictive work practices and government regulations, which mean that it takes months for people to get anything done? The transport system in this country is also helping to strangle private enterprise. If the Government stopped choking investment, investors would be prepared to have a go in this country. I remind the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, that on 15 October last year, in response to a question I put to him about the increasing current account deficit, he made some disparaging remarks about my concern that the level of investment rates was encouraging speculative funds into this country and that it was fraught with danger. I warned him what the situation was. But no, he knew that what was happening was that there was a political move in this country to keep interest rates at a high level in order to encourage short term foreign investment in this country, to try to overcome the gap in the current account deficit. I warned Senator Button then that it was a dangerous policy. I warn him today that this country is living on a knife edge because of that dangerous policy. I am sure that Senator Walsh would acknowledge publicly that the economy is balanced to such an extent that the Government must continue to underpin the value of the currency by tightening monetary levels and raising interest rates to a very high level to keep that short term money in the country. The Government is worried that as soon as interest rates fall-it knows that interest rates must fall-that money will rush out of Australia and the value of the dollar will fall drastically. The Government is holding the economy on a knife edge in this area, and all because of these disastrous policies and the disastrous continued spending that it has maintained since Australia recovered from the drought and since the world recovered from its recession. Let me make some comparisons between our interest rates and interest rates in other countries. Australia is currently running a commercial prime interest rate of 18.25 per cent, whereas the rate in the United Kingdom is 7.5 per cent and in Japan it is 3.75 per cent. I told the Senate that I would look at the effect of this on the people of this country. Let us look at the interest rate that people are paying on Bankcard. The Bankcard rate is 18 per cent to 22 per cent. The rate for personal loans is 20 per cent. Car prices for comparatively modest models have increased by between 33 per cent and 85 per cent. Is it any wonder that the people of Australia are no longer buying new motor cars at the level of demand which ought to exist in this country? A Commodore SL went up by 42 per cent from May 1984 to January 1987. Even a Camira has gone up by 40 per cent. Fancy being asked to pay $13,363 for a Camira. Who would want to buy a Camira for that sort of money? Of course, car dealers are not selling them because the price is too expensive, and it is too expensive because of the Government's policies. Even if people did say that they would buy a Camira at that price, they cannot afford to pay the 20-odd per cent interest rates that would be charged on a loan for such a motor car. A Falcon utility now sells at $14,491. What on earth has the Hawke Labor Government done to this country? Then if we look at food prices we see that in four years of Labor government milk has gone up by 23 per cent, bread by 43 per cent and flour by 40 per cent. The price of tea has risen by 83 per cent and baby food by 32 per cent. That is because of inflation and rising prices under the Labor Government and thanks to its policies and the country going broke. There have been enormous increases in bankruptcies. Senator McKiernan —Particularly in Queensland. Senator LEWIS —Let me say that, notwithstanding some of the allegations made by Labor senators, the largest increases in the number of bankruptcies have occurred in States with Labor governments. If they want to know the figures, the highest rate is in South Australia with a figure of 61 per cent, Western Australia 57 per cent, Victoria 37 per cent and New South Wales 28 per cent. So the highest bankruptcy rates have been in the Labor States. Let us look at the question of unemployment. My father was a Labor man, and I thought that the Australian Labor Party abandoned unemployment as an instrument of economic policy back in his era when he was a young man 50-odd years ago. I was looking at a political book the other day, written in 1972, which referred to Australia's bipartisan full employment policy. Then we had the Whitlam Government with its three disastrous years. What happened? Thanks to the policies of the Labor Government, interest rates and inflation went right through the roof, followed by massive unemployment. We tried desperately to rein it back, but were not helped by the policy of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and certainly not by Mr Hawke who was leading the Council. One can recall what he did to us when we were in government. We tried desperately to bring down unemployment, but the situation is that this Labor Government has not just allowed unemployment to float, but is using it as an instrument of economic policy. Let me quote what Mr Howe said recently. On 5 December last year he was reported as saying: Unemployment benefits have tended to be viewed as welfare payments but we should see it-- that is the unemployment benefits- as a link in the labour market. In other words, he was saying that these people are not unemployed, but that the benefit is some sort of link in the labour market-they are being paid unemployment benefit as wages by this Government. That is the way Mr Howe sees the position. Mr Willis meanwhile predicts that unemployment will remain at between 8.2 per cent and 8.4 per cent. I hope that he is right, but other people in this country are predicting that it will be up to 9.5 per cent by July this year-that is, 640,000 Australians unemployed. This Government continues to use those unemployed people as an instrument of its economic policy. As the substance of this matter of urgency indicates, there is a desperate need for a mini-Budget so that the Government can take at least the first step in trying to bring the economy back into some semblance of sense. The mini-Budget should rapidly cut government expenditure for the remainder of this financial year and then go into the following financial year with even greater cuts in government expenditure. I sincerely support the matter of urgency proposed by my colleague Senator Chaney. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.44) —This matter of urgency brought on by the Opposition today, far from revealing any intelligent or positive response to Australia's economic problems, simply reveals, if we needed any more revelations, that the Opposition has lost political relevance. It has lost the political leadership of the conservative forces in this country. Somewhere on the way to the forum that leadership was hijacked-hijacked by Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his merry band of white-shoed land developers from Surfers Paradise. They knew that there was a vacuum; they could smell it because the smell of decay and death lies all about the Opposition. As they smelt it they stepped in and they hijacked it. It is pretty easy to smell that scent of death when one listens to John Howard, who is quoted so much by Senator Lewis. For Senator Lewis's edification, I would like to run through a transcript of the words of Mr Howard on the steps of Parliament House on 17 February. He was asked by a journalist: . . . your attitude on indirect taxes. Mr Sinclair says he disagrees. How can the coalition survive that? Mr Howard replied: I haven't seen exactly what Mr Sinclair has said but my own views on the need to consider, as an option, broadening of the indirect tax base as part of a trade-off for lower income tax had not altered and cannot alter because I am not prepared like some people including the Queensland Premier to suspend the laws of arithmetic. The journalist went on to say: Mr Howard, until a few days ago this was a solid policy. Now it is consideration of an option. Mr Howard's response was: Would you please let me go to church. I do not think he was going to find the policy there either. The journalist then said: When did it become just an option instead of a solid policy? Mr Howard said: There has been no change in my own view at all. The transcript continues: JOURNALIST: But what about in the Opposition's- Mr HOWARD: No, there has been no alteration of the principles that I laid down at the Federal Council meeting. JOURNALIST: So Mr Sinclair is disagreeing with official coalition policy? Mr HOWARD, I haven't seen exactly what Mr Sinclair has said- he repeats- and I don't propose to be drawn into discussion . . . There is a bit of a problem in the Opposition. Senator Lewis —Come on, Graham, you are sending everyone to sleep. Senator RICHARDSON —I say to Senator Lewis that the whole of Australia is not going to sleep because it reads about your misery and decay every day. Every day we pick up the paper, we look at the headlines, and the grin takes over our face and stays the whole day. It cannot happen to a more deserving bunch of people than Opposition members. This Opposition professes, so we hear today, its concern for Australian families. Opposition members talk about crippling taxes and high interest rates. Then we are really touched when Senator Lewis raises the terrible issue of high unemployment and what we have done to car prices. I note in the wording of the matter of urgency reference to the `essential' of the family car. If Opposition members go over to talk to those single parents on the lawn who are raising families, they will find that those women are not too worried about the purchase of a $13,000 Camira. They are worried about putting food on the table, and this Government is worried about making sure that they get it. That is of no concern to the Opposition, which makes no reference to those people. Opposition members just do not care. How did Opposition members handle the economy in the period 1975-83? They have the gall to come in here to tell of Labor using unemployment as a weapon. I remember, as I am sure do thousands of Australians, that the Government at that time put out of work 750 people every day in its last year of office. One could not count how many people that Government put out at the end. Opposition members also talk about the car industry. Have they gone back to 1981 and 1982 and asked the thousands who were laid off in the car industry from General-Motors Holden's, Ford and Chrysler, under the then Government's leadership, under Mr Howard's leadership, what they think of Opposition policy? I know what people think of it. People were led into industrial oblivion because of the Opposition and its policies. Let us look at the Opposition's record and recite some of the facts. Let us look at the massive advantages in those years of office and at the chance the Government then blew. When that Government got into office it promised so much when coal and iron ore prices and indeed all our commodity prices were high. Those were the halcyon days and revenue was pouring in from Bass Strait-one could not count it all. The current Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity to embark on some sort of fundamental restructuring, but what did he do? He jumped on the back of the resource boom, took the easy way out, abrogated his responsibility and blew it for Australia. He was quite happy to see secondary industry fall apart because the tail that wags the dog-and I can see no National Party senators here at present-the real power in the Opposition parties in the Senate, Senator Bjelke-Petersen and Senator Boswell, the ones who really run the show, are not worried about secondary industry, and when they stand up and say something Opposition members bow down. They all lie down like craven dogs before the National Party. The National Party runs the show. So what happened? Those opposite tore the economy apart. They ruined it once again. They continued this insane policy of maintaining an overvalued dollar. Senator Bjelke-Petersen and the rest of the National Party liked it, they thought it was terrific, but the Liberals just kept it going. Their anti-inflationary weapon was actually devastating the Australian economy and manufacturing. Senator Short —You know that that is simply not true. Senator RICHARDSON —It is an absolute fact, and Senator Short knows it. Where was he when the National Party was wagging the tail on the dog? Senator Walsh —Under the table. Senator RICHARDSON —He was under the table, hand on the phone, leaking documents. The Liberals were unable to do anything about the policy. When we came into government we had to have a look at what they had done. I have had a good look at that several times now. Again, here is an opportunity to remind those opposite of just some of the sins that they rendered upon us. Let us look at their record of concern for the Australian family. We have to refer to how many families were affected when the Liberals were putting 750 people out of work every day. I would have thought that Australian families would remember it. When those opposite left government what was the unemployment rate in this country? It was nearly 11 per cent. It is now just over 8 per cent. We have got the level down-not up. It is not a weapon that we have used except to try to put people back to work. Those opposite have always been prepared, and always will be-with their boarding school backgrounds-to put ordinary people out of work. It keeps them in a cosy sort of retirement. I might say that that is what a lot of those opposite seem to be in, here in the Senate. Few Australians have forgotten that the work place became a battle ground in those days. That was when we had the fantastic experiment in deregulation. That is when the free marketeers opposite had their say. They were clever. They said: `We will leave it to the market place to work out and that will keep wages down'. What happened? In 1981-82 those opposite were getting a 13 and 14 per cent explosion in wages. They ruined the economy because they backed the wrong horse. I might say that their capacity to back losers was unparalleled in Australian political history. When it came to that, they did what they always do-they backed the wrong horse. And what happened? Small business, which those opposite now profess to adopt, was crushed because big unions and big business got together, did their deals and came to their arrangements. They forced them upon small business and there was devastation. That is the only recipe that those opposite can come back with again because they are far too frightened to take on the New Right. When it comes to the New Right or the old Right of Bjelke-Petersen-whatever right it is-again those opposite bow down. We want to know what happened to the courage of those opposite. Where did it go? Somewhere along the line it dropped off the back of the cart. I do not think that they can put it back on. Fortunately, we kept our courage, and we kept our heads with it. Under the disastrous wages explosions of those opposite, average weekly earnings grew by 13 per cent in 1980-81, 14.5 per cent in 1981-82 and 11.5 per cent in 1982-83. That is what those opposite gave Australia. They gave it a wages explosion from which it will take decades to recover. If the latest figures of 8.3 per cent unemployment are to be taken into account-I might say that those opposite were laughing about this last August; they said that the Budget predictions just were not on, but as far as unemployment is concerned so far the Budget predictions are spot on-the Government will be dead right again, because we have the policies in place. We knew what we were doing and we held the line on unemployment. We delivered the goods. We will not consign Australian families to the unemployment scrapheap, as did those opposite. We just will not do that. Also, those opposite have had the unmitigated gall to lecture us about inflation. Again, they should look at the figures for when they were in office. In 1979-80 the figure was 10.1 per cent, in 1981-82 it was 10.4 per cent and in 1982-83 it was 11.5 per cent. What credentials do they have to talk at all about economics here? They have absolutely none. Those opposite had the chance time and again and they blew it. In addition, for the first time in 30 years of conservative rule-broken by a very small period of Labor rule-these economic geniuses who want to lecture us about how to run an economy brought about negative growth. No one else but John Howard could ever have achieved that. If one looks at his performance as Treasurer and his Budgets-and I think it is relevant to do so at this time as we would all have to agree that successful budgeting is a measure of any Treasurer's ability-how did the conservatives and John Howard perform on that score? On every single occasion when John Howard as Treasurer brought down a Budget he was wide of his estimated deficit targets, and was on the wrong side of them five times in a row. He could not do any better. He could not get near the figures. Three of the five Howard Budgets blew out beyond Budget predictions, culminating in that massive blow-out of 1982-83. Just remember how big that blow-out was. The Budget estimate for the year was $1.68 billion. The actual figure was $4.47 billion-a blow-out of almost $3 billion. Honourable senators would remember the Budget deficit when we gained office in March 1983-and those rubbery figures. How those opposite must have fiddled with them in the back room to come up with a $6 billion figure! We had been in office for only five minutes when we found that the figure was almost $10 billion. That is the sort of destruction those opposite were prepared to wreak on Australia. The other interesting figure in all those Howard Budgets represented the Howard deficits-5 per cent of gross domestic product. That is why those opposite were thrown out of office and why-as they would know when they listened to the transcript I read out of John Howard ducking and weaving on tax policy-they cannot get back into office. Last night we saw the spectacle of the man people refer to as `Sinkers', Mr Ian Sinclair, on the Carleton-Walsh Report-the artful dodger who lost the art of dodging, who got caught and who could not hack the questioning because he was done in his own Party room. The coalition is in shambles. Those opposite do not know where they are going on tax policies. There is a printed tax policy in John Howard's office which those opposite now have to reprint. Is that what Australia is to ask for: An opposition that cannot work out amongst its members who is leading it-whether it is someone from Queensland or someone in this Parliament-and cannot work out what tax policy it will run? We have waited breathlessly for two years for that tax policy and now, as we got near to the date when we could all see it come into the light of day, what happens? Joh Bjelke-Petersen gives it a rubbish and all those opposite run for cover. It is back to compromise. This shows John Howard to be weak and vacillating again. How can Australia ever handle that sort of weakness? We know that the only industry that could ever grow under Malcolm Fraser and John Howard was the tax avoidance industry. Now, as those opposite go back and buckle under to that white shoe brigade that I referred to earlier, the Surfers Paradise push, all they will do is back up for one more time what Costigan said-that the tax avoidance industry grew like the heady days of the Victorian gold rush. At the end of the day those opposite do not know where they are going. The Australian people do not go where they are going and, as an Opposition, those opposite are finished. Their chances of winning the next election are nil. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(4.59) —In the few minutes available I want to ask the following question: Do Australians really care about the future of their country? I challenge politicians in this place: Do they really care about the future of Australia? We have listened for two hours to a debate on the economy. I have heard very few concrete suggestions as to how this country should change its economic direction. A mini-Budget is fine, but one which gives us just more of the same medicine will not achieve anything. This country needs a 180-degree change of direction if it is to avoid disaster. We are charging at full speed to the brink of bankruptcy and nobody seems to be very worried about it. Nobody is debating concrete suggestions as to how we can change our direction. Deregulation of the financial institutions has not worked, is not working and will never work. The Business Council of Australia recently said that we have to cut government spending by $3 billion. If it had said we should cut government waste by $3 billion, it may have been saying something. But the fact is that just last year we saw the spectacle of $5.5 billion going into the defence of, and attack on, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Limited, without creating one additional job. There has been virtually no investment in new, productive resources in this country for the last decade. Unless we encourage financial investment in productive resources, resources that will create jobs, there is no future for this country. We must build an industrial base that is export oriented and can sell our products around the world. That requires co-operation between governments, business, trade unions and the work force generally. We have the model of Japan. In 40 years Japan has built an industrial machine that is the envy of the world. When we look at how the Japanese have done it we must ask whether we can do it too. Why can we not do it? Are we not as clever as the Japanese? What sorts of techniques do they use? Perhaps we could learn a few lessons. In the last 18 months since I re-entered the Senate I have been advocating concrete solutions to Australia's economic malaise. So far I have been a voice in the wilderness and still I see no debate, no concrete suggestions as to where we go from here. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Macklin, M. J. Baume, Michael Mason, C. V. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Powell, J. F. Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sanders, N. K. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Short, J. R. Haines, J. Siddons, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vigor, D. B. Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Button, J. N. McIntosh, G. D. Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Grimes, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Ryan, S. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) requesting a change in the membership of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. Motion (by Senator Tate)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator McKiernan be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts and that Senator West, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36AA, be appointed a member of the Committee. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) nominating Senator Robert Ray to serve as a trustee on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust consequent upon the resignation of former Senator Douglas McClelland. Motion (by Senator Tate)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, the Senate appoint Senator Robert Ray as a trustee to serve on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust on and from this day consequent upon the resignation of Senator Douglas McClelland. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Pursuant to standing order 408, I seek leave to make a personal explanation with respect to a publication. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —Some honourable senators will have received a hard cover book entitled A Baby, Maybe, published by Nugent-Smith Enterprises, which makes certain false allegations, including that I had referred to in vitro fertilisation pregnancies as second rate pregnancies and to children born as a result of IVF as second rate children. I find that accusation deeply hurtful, grossly offensive and highly defamatory. In both my private and public life I have sought to uphold the essential equality of all human beings at each stage of their development, and indeed that was a basis upon which my Human Embryo Experimentation Bill was founded. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would like to deal with that part of the annual report of the Department of the Special Minister of State which deals with law enforcement. I am pleased to see the new Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) in the chamber because I offer to him my full co-operation and that of other members of the Opposition in trying to get a greater commitment than was exhibited by the former Minister. The new Minister has a major task, and I am very pleased to see that the newspaper reporting of his appointment said that dealing with organised crime was one of his major intentions. It certainly is needed. The morale of the Australian Federal Police can be gauged very much by the number of resignations, the complaints by the unions and the various police officers who have gone public with their complaints. This is most uncharacteristic, but it is typical of an organisation which is not in the best of regard. When we look over the various inquiries that there have been and the reports that have been made we look at the action that has been taken by the Government, which has been very little indeed. I mention the Coastal Protection Unit, an organisation which has 21 officers and 10 staff members to cover 37,000 miles of coastline. I mention the Drug Offensive. I would certainly request that the Minister now turns the publicity into an enforcement phase. I mention the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence which has never been manned or equipped as per the agreement of establishment, and the Government has systematically refused to do so. Then there is the Federal Police. It has had token increases in staff numbers. I urge the Minister to read the reports and make a ministerial statement on his attitudes and intentions as far as the upgrading of that body is concerned. I would like him to produce the Government's commitment, not its promises. There can be no relenting on the pursuit of crooks, not just the old vice and violence type but also the modern ones-the barons of business, the white collar gentlemen crooks, those who direct and fund the crime, those with impeccable connections and friends in high places and, most of all, the corrupt offices that go with it. This work will need greater emphasis on specialist officers, either by getting them through university courses, by lateral, non-ranked entry or by other means. The success or otherwise of the new Minister will be judged entirely by the action he takes, not the inquiries he runs or the procrastination that he now follows. While he pursues these issues, he can be assured of every co-operation from me and the party for which I speak. I am looking through the bundle of papers that I have in this regard. To give honourable senators an idea of the problems that exist in the law enforcement aspects, the Director of Public Prosecutions, in his annual report of 1985-86, said: . . . unfortunately the AFP does not have the resources to cope with more than a few of the large number of cases referred to it . . . Again, he said: This unsatisfactory state of affairs can only undermine the deterrent value of prosecution in this area. In relation to the Health Insurance Act he stated: The legislation is generally in an unsatisfactory state for the purpose of prosecution . . . the legislation is vague and ambiguous. Again, he states: Another major difficulty we face in the staffing area is the resources required to prosecute the `bottom of the harbour' cases inherited from former Special Prosecutor Gyles Q.C. Another report states: The criminal element has little to fear from Customs on the waterfront except through his own carelessness. So it goes on. There is welfare fraud. The joint task group in the AFP review of resources was presented with cases of serious criminal activities but had no power to follow them through. The Customs Inspection Service which deals with the duty evaders is now at saturation point in trying to cope with the flood of cases. I leave it to the Minister to ensure that these areas are adequately staffed and adequately resourced if we are to make any meaningful approach to the attacks on organised crime and particularly drug related crime. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Today the Commonwealth Grants Commission's sixth report for 1986 on financial assistance for the Northern Territory has been tabled in the Senate. It is a report of some importance, and I would like to respond to its tabling. The report is the first of its kind. It is a retrospective review of funding which was provided to the Northern Territory in 1983-84 and 1984-85. I would like the Senate to understand that the Commonwealth Grants Commission has never previously been asked to undertake a retrospective review of State funding. The treatment which the Northern Territory has received through this action of the Commonwealth is unprecedented in intergovernmental financial relations. The report provides a window on the financial arrangements which existed in respect of the Territory some three or four years ago. It uses data which in some cases is derived from the 1981-82 expenditure patterns and takes no cognisance of the very significant changes which have occurred in the Territory's funding in recent times. The Northern Territory received funds from the Commonwealth in those years after agreements had been reached at Premiers Conferences and the amounts had been confirmed in the Commonwealth's appropriation Acts. That money has been spent in good faith and in accordance with the priorities of the Northern Territory Parliament. Clearly, the Commonwealth cannot seek to recover funds on the basis of the report. Any reduction at all as a result of this report would be double dipping by the Commonwealth. It would result in the Territory not having sufficient funds to provide standard government services. In that instance Territorians would be treated as second class Australians. In any case, the deduction has already been made. At the 1985 Premiers Conference the Territory's funding was reduced by $15m to take account of the implied overfunding which has been identified in the Commission's sixth report. That reduction is ongoing. This puts the Territory's funding on the same basis as that of the States. The Senate, which is the States House, should ensure that a precedent is not established whereby retrospective reviews of the States' funding becomes an accepted fact. I urge the Government to take no action on this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.21) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The annual report of the Remuneration Tribunal is a very slim volume which merely outlines the investigations that the Tribunal has undertaken in the last year. When the Tribunal's report on the terms and conditions of salaries and allowances for members of parliament came before this chamber last year, I made one or two comments about the futility of the exercise that it was engaged in and the absurdity of providing expenditure for an inquiry into parliamentarians' salaries when we in this place go through the ritual of rejecting on a regular basis any such report that comes from the Tribunal. I really do not believe that this type of farce should go on any longer. I would hope that the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate), who is at the table and has assumed responsibility for this area, will move as rapidly as possible to make sure that it does not continue. There must be many areas in which the money that goes into those inquiries could be better spent, particularly if we insist on-- Senator Archer —Better saved. Senator MACKLIN —Well, all right, it may be better saved. I would like to raise one item with regard to that. There is a whole area of expenditure with regard to the Parliament that should come under the Remuneration Tribunal if that body is to do its job in a constructive way and if the Government were intent on making the Tribunal a constructive body. I refer to the other areas of expenditure on electorate offices. I believe that it is time for us in Australia to look at the system which is used in Canada and the United States of America. Every financial year a lump sum payment is made to the member of parliament. That money is then spent on salaries to employ staff, to pay rents and to hire premises. It is spent on equipment for offices, electorate expenses, et cetera. The member of parliament makes the choice in terms of allocation. If members want to sit on cardboard boxes so that they can have computers, that is what they do. In Australia, public servants make the decision that we will not have computers but we can have as many biros as we have hands. In fact, that is very true-on some occasions they send us two at a time. I believe that the absurdity of that exercise really has to be addressed. When we think about it, enormous expenditure savings can be made in this area. A lot of public servants deal with members of parliament, public servants not only from the Department of the Special Minister of State, but also from the Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Administrative Services. I think those public servants could be reallocated to other areas of much higher priority and need. Any member of parliament who comes into this place has contacts within the community. After all, about the only way a person can get here is by having a wide range of contacts in the community. I do not think there would be one member of parliament who could not much more cheaply staff his own office, provide for his own office, find the rent for his own office and get better equipment for his own office from the private market rather than going through the system which is currently used. In other words, savings could be made in this area. Better equipment could be obtained for us to do our jobs. Enormous savings could be made in terms of the salaries of public servants who are currently employed in that area. I think they would be far better employed in providing support in the social welfare area. Senator Colin Mason raised with me today the fact that there are cuts in terms of a school for the deaf in Queensland, and so on. This money could be better spent in so many other areas. I believe it is time that something was done. I hope that the new Special Minister of State will take this matter on board. I hope that he will by-pass his own Department. However, I am quite sure that the Yes Minister syndrome will set in very rapidly and that he will not have a chance in fact to do away with a number of public servants in his department and offer them to other areas in government where they could be better used. I hope that he will move very rapidly. I understand that the Opposition thinks that it will have to do whatever it has to do in the first week that it takes office. I think the Minister has only another four days left to make some decisions before he is locked in. I hope that he will look at this matter within the next four days because it is a constructive suggestion. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.26) —I would like to support Senator Macklin. I think it would be in order to suggest to the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) that as he is not the Minister to keep the Government in office-I guess that has been retained by his predecessor-he may give some consideration to establishing a parliamentary committee to consider this overall aspect of what is best for the operation of the Senate. I believe that we could come up with a lot of information and get a much better input if the members and their staffs were able to make a contribution rather than leaving it as a departmental issue, where certainly there is absolutely no input when these decisions come before them. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.27) —The last two speakers have raised a serious question. I would like to indicate that the proposition that was floated just a moment ago by Senator Macklin would also probably have the advantage of ensuring that members of parliament are treated equitably in the distribution of services such as computers, by the Department of the Special Minister of State. I do not want to go into that. I will just leave it to lie on the table. I might go into it at a later stage-one never knows. I hope the honeymoon of the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) continues for a long time; I do not want to disturb it. I have found that the Remuneration Tribunal does not seem to give extensive reasons for its decisions. Senator Haines —Would it matter-we always turn them down? Senator HARRADINE —That might be true. The functions of the Tribunal, as set out in the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, are to inquire into and report to the Special Minister of State on the salaries payable to Ministers of state, the remuneration of judges, the remuneration of the President and members of the Interstate Commission, et cetera. The Tribunal is also required to inquire into, report on and determine allowances payable to Ministers of state, the remuneration and allowances of senators and members of the Commonwealth Parliament, et cetera. In making those determinations, it is my view that the Tribunal should always put forward judgments giving its reasons for its decisions. This was not the case when the Remuneration Tribunal determined, at the behest of the Government, that members of parliament should be able to take their de factos overseas. The Remuneration Tribunal did not give any reason for that decision whatsoever, despite the fact that that decision acted as a legislative pacesetter in establishing a cohabiting situation on the same basis and the same status as marriage and despite the legislation which was adopted by the Parliament expressing the Parliament's view on marriage. Mr Deputy President, as you and honourable senators would know, after a considerable battle ranging over two years and after submissions that I had made to the Tribunal and to this chamber, the Remuneration Tribunal legislation was amended last year, as indicated in the Remuneration Tribunal's annual report which we are now discussing. Page 3 simply notes that the Remuneration and Allowances Alteration Act 1986 may modify determination No. 11 of 1986 in that respect. I remind the Senate that that was as a result of an amendment I moved on that occasion, which had the effect of deleting from the Tribunal the provisions enabling members of Parliament to take de factos overseas. I take this opportunity of indicating to the Tribunal that it would be an insult to this Parliament were it, in its 1987 decision, to reinstate a provision which would enable members of parliament to take de factos overseas, in effect giving de factos the same status as bona fide marriages. I also take this opportunity to indicate that it would be entirely appropriate for the Minister to tell the Tribunal that the Parliament has made its wish perfectly well known on this matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.32) —I want to raise only one issue with regard to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Before I do so I would like to recommend that as many people as possible read this report. It is an extremely detailed one and, in the main, the Committee members are to be commended for the sorts of issues they cover and the amount of time they spend looking at this area. The particular recommendation I want to look at is not one which I support. Recommendation 18 (e) recommends that the Electoral Act be amended to provide: the surname, given names, addresses, occupation, sex and date of birth of each elector should be available on the Electoral Roll and on the publicly available microfiche of the Electoral Roll; I have to say that I feel some considerable concern at the fact that the Committee majority has seen fit to recommend this. I compliment my colleague Senator Macklin on his dissenting report on this matter. It does not sound as though it is something that one ought to get particularly fussed over, but I suggest that some concerns may have been raised to the Committee and that, if they were raised, the Committee clearly did not pay sufficient attention to them. The word `occupation' was deleted from the electoral roll a couple of years ago, and I can think of several good reasons why. Those people who, like myself, were, or still are, in the teaching profession and others who are members of, say, the medical profession, the accounting profession or any other profession which has a reasonable remuneration behind it will recollect that one of the more irritating aspects of having our occupations listed in the electoral roll was that we were fair game to some quite legitimate activities on the part of enthusiastic sellers of things such as insurance and encyclopaedias. It was easy enough to find out who was in what profession and who was, therefore, likely to be either interested in, or able to pay for, extra insurance or some of the luxuries of life such as encyclopaedias. In itself that is perhaps not a real problem, but when it is extended to the sorts of shonky deals that can be put to some unsuspecting people I think we ought to beware of it. The other problem, of course, is that there is an interesting number of families in which the pair in the home both work-that is, it is a dual-income family and both husband and wife are habitually absent from home. Again it would not be difficult for somebody in a specific area to run his eye down the list of names in the electoral roll and discover whether both occupants were likely to be at work all day, leaving the home vacant. Given the increase in breaking and entering, certainly in South Australia-and I presume that that is reflected in other States-I would not have thought that we would be trying to do anything at all that would exacerbate that problem. I do not think it is hysterics to be concerned about those sorts of issues. While I certainly do not wish to impede the money-making of people who sell encyclopaedias, insurance or anything else, I think we need to watch just to what extent we give people licence to find out information about other people. The date of a person's birth is something which appears, on the surface, even less of a concern until we think of the number of occasions on which we have seen newspaper reports of elderly people being harassed in their homes by people who sell ideas for repainting roofs or doing other sorts of renovations around the home and who have absolutely no intention either of providing an adequate service for the money they receive or of actually performing the service after they have received some sort of payment in advance. This is distressing to elderly people, who are quite frequently on pensions or low superannuation payments. Again these people ought not to be encouraged by having the date of birth listed in as readily accessible a public document as the electoral rolls or the microfiche of the electoral rolls in each State. I would have thought that, in this day and age, we ought to be acting to protect people from invasions of privacy that modern technology can assist. I know that there are a lot of members of parliament who argue that it would be useful for them to know people's ages or occupations so that, again using the computers that many of us have in our offices, we can send out letters to target groups-people between the ages of 19 and 22 who are likely to be at university if we are trying to sell our education policy, or people over the age of 65 if we are trying to convince them that our concern for the welfare of pensioners is greater than the concern of anybody else-or anything else that politicians are want to do when they are trying to win elections from time to time. But I would have thought that even that-or maybe even especially that-was something we ought to be prepared to give up if putting this sort of information back on the electoral roll were likely to lead to quite unwarranted and intrusive abuse of the information, a loss of privacy to many families and individuals, and in some cases a very real threat of fraud, breaking and enterings, loss of possessions and so on, to say nothing of the problems that we all know exist for elderly people or women who are alone at home at night or even during the day. I would like to indicate my concern, shared by my colleague Senator Macklin and by the rest of my Party, at the fact that the majority report recommends that the Electoral Act be amended to put back information that was recently taken out-that is, the occupation of the person named-and the inclusion of a piece of information which, to the best of my knowledge, has never previously been included on the electoral roll; that is, somebody's date of birth. As for the requirement for sex identification, apart from the fact that I cannot see why it is particularly necessary, I would have thought that in any case most people with even a modicum of intelligence ought to be able to work out somebody's sex by looking at his or her given names. Why they would particularly want to do that is beyond me. Senator Harradine —Like Robin Gray. Senator HAINES —Senator Harradine raises Robin Gray's name. Perhaps in that case it would be useful to know Robin Gray's sex but I would have thought that in the majority of instances it would not be a particularly useful piece of information. I would certainly urge the Government not to accept this recommendation because of all the potential problems and threats that it could cause for large numbers of Australians. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.40) —In passing I indicate that I have a fine son-in-law called Robin and that in both his case and the case of Robin Gray there is no mistaking that they are of the male gender. Senator Robert Ray, the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, gave a Chairman's statement in bringing forward the Committee's report yesterday. He indicated very briefly some of the matters that had been considered by this Committee. The Committee is hard working. The report covers a wide range of questions and there are many positive recommendations in its 230-odd pages. The Chairman thanked a number of people. His report was incomplete in that respect, because there is one person to whom he did not refer. His modesty precluded him from referring to his own chairmanship. I take this opportunity of acknowledging publicly that Senator Robert Ray's chairmanship of that Committee, which comprises members of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Australian Democrats and me, was excellent in my view. He enabled discussions to range and viewpoints to be put; yet somehow we got through our work quite efficiently and effectively. What I have to say now necessarily is in the form of qualification. I supported 98 per cent of the report; but, as we all know, some radical changes have taken place in both the electoral system as it applies to the Senate and the number of senators to be elected on each occasion on which there is a half Senate election. Professor Joan Rydon, Professor of Politics at La Trobe University, said of these two changes: The new alternative method of Senate voting gives tremendous power to the political parties to whom the voters surrender their rights to allocate and bargain over their preferences. It is a further step in the adaptation of the Single Transferrable Vote (STV) system of proportional representation away from its original aim of breaking parties to serving their purpose. (Earlier steps have been in the grouping of candidates, allowing the parties to decide on the order in which their candidates' names appear and in the method of filling casual vacancies.) The interesting point that Professor Rydon made was that the original design of the proportional representation system was aimed at breaking party influences, and now it has been turned around to serving the parties' interests. We must reflect, surely, on what that does to this chamber. This chamber is designed to be a House of review, not a party house, not a rubber stamp for what happens in the House of Representatives. Yet a person recognised in the political science community has indicated that what we did-against my vote-when we amended the Electoral Act was to enhance the power of the parties. Incidentally, under the bloc system of voting, the list system, when voters put a number one in the box for the party they supported, how many of them really understood that their preferences would be allocated precisely in the manner of the party how-to-vote ticket registered with the Commonwealth Electoral Office? I put this to the test soon after the last election. I went into a timber industry establishment-one of the factories dealing with the pulp and paper industry-and said to a few of my mates: `How did the election go? I suppose you put a number one in the Labor Party box?'. `Oh yes, Brian', they replied. I said: `Congratulations. You have just elected Norm Sanders'. This is no reflection on Senator Sanders, but the fact is that everybody knows that he is a strong opponent of woodchipping, the Hydro-Electric Commission and so on. I am not going to get into that argument; but how many electors involved in the hydro-electric, timber and such industries knew that by placing a number one in the Labor Party box they in fact elected Norm Sanders? The test of a fair electoral system surely is that it truly reflect the intention of the voter. It is extraordinary, in my view, that we do not really address that question in this report. It is also significant to note that the expansion of the Senate-that is, an additional senator to be elected from each of the States-entrenches the party system in this chamber. One might think it would do otherwise because it reduces the quota; but let me explain. The quota, with six senators to be elected, will be 14.3 per cent. That means that a major party needs to achieve only 42.9 per cent of the vote-nearly 43 per cent-to get three seats, namely, 50 per cent of the seats. It is possible that this situation will spell the end of smaller groups and independents in this chamber. I do not intend to see it spelling my end because, fortunately, on the last two elections I got over 14.3 per cent-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! Senator Harradine, your time has expired. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.51) —The Senate has before it the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. I am a member of that Committee, which has met many times in the past three to four years. In the period 1983 to 1984 it sat continually and made a lot of recommendations, the majority of which were adopted, and substantial changes were made to the electoral system. The purpose of this report from the Committee is to review the 1984 Federal election both of the lower House and the Senate and to make recommendations for reforms which may have emerged as being necessary or desirable following the election. I commend, as has Senator Harradine, the Chairman, Senator Robert Ray; I commend my colleagues on the Committee because they attempted a very worthwhile degree of bipartisanship. Whilst I might have wanted to alter in a particular way quite a number of the recommendations that have gone forward-I think this applied to others on the Committee-we got a degree of compromise which is worth while. It is interesting that there are a relatively small number of dissenting reports and I think that is a sign of the hard work of the Committee. The Committee is an interesting one in that it includes a considerable number of senators who have had expert knowledge of the system and therefore can bring to bear a degree of knowledge which otherwise might not have been the case. The other fundamental thing that ought to be stressed is this: The Committee works almost continually with officers of the Commonwealth Electoral Commission and its Chairman, Dr Hughes, who are present at its hearings. Usually the Deputy Electoral Commissioner, Mr Cirulis, is also present. In my view it is important that there should be a placental exchange, as it were, of views between the Committee and the Commission in their deliberations with the Commission having an input. I think the first recommendation is that in future there should be a standing committee and that recommendation has my strong support. The great value of the Committee is its continued relationship with the Commission and the exchange of views. Often it is not simply what one reads in a report that matters; rather it is the journey that has been taken, what has been resolved or neutralised, as it were, on the journey and that should be understood. It may be thought that with more than 150 recommendations there would not be much else left to review. By and large most of those recommendations are minor; by and large most of them are pretty worthwhile matters. I draw attention to some reforms that have been suggested regarding the working of the redistribution commission. The test of any parliamentary system and its integrity must be the way the Parliament and the government of the day set up a redistribution commission and how that commission carries out its duties. All the talk in the world of gerrymanders or malapportionments are as nothing if we do not have an institution that has both integrity and some expertise. I believe that with one or two reforms that I have suggested, what we have at the moment is a good framework. I have to pay tribute to the Commission, the commissioners and the officers who serve the Commission. It is also good because its work is continually exposed to this Parliament. The Committee is not just a committee; it is a continual representation, we hope, of the views of the Parliament which it expresses to the Commission and, of course, the Commission reflects views back to it. One of the important things that happened-it is contained in the recommendations-arises out of the 1984 electoral distribution. In New South Wales, after the original maps had been presented and a period was allowed for objections, in a number of cases the final maps were vastly different from the original maps. Upon reflection that, in itself, defeats the whole purpose of allowing objections because the purpose of allowing objections is to look at and to analyse the original maps, their concept and philosophy. If one could wake up and find a fait accompli of some maps that bear no relationship at all to the originals and one had no way in which one could complain or object, then, of course, the purpose is defeated. I do not reflect in any way upon the Commission. It had a very difficult job indeed. We recommended that if there is to be a major change in the mind of the Commission after it published its first maps, it should say so and present the change and allow time for further objections. This should apply only if there are major objections. I think this matter is fundamental because electoral redistribution is a thorough basis for the integrity of this Parliament. However esoteric the formula in terms of malapportionment, we now have a system that gets as near to one vote one value as one could hope for. Provided the rolls are clean, redistributions will be fairly reflected on malapportionment. Of course a gerrymander, that is the alteration of the boundaries, is another matter. One could have one vote one value and still have a gerrymander. However, I stress that the present system-it is interfaced with this Parliament-now gives one great reassurance against a gerrymander. I have a number of points I would like to raise. Senator Georges —You won't have time. They only give you 10 minutes in the debate. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I will not have time. That is right. I thank Senator Georges. Perhaps he and I could have a talk. It is true that 10 minutes to debate a major subject is very short. A lot of the amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act both in the past and now that have been recommended are an attempt to make sure that every voter is compelled to cast his vote. I have repeatedly drawn attention to the absolute anomaly and ridiculous nature of this situation because although the Act attempts to do this it can only force an elector to go to the polling place and get his or her name struck off the roll. We cannot know what will happen to the ballot paper. Because there is no way of finding out, the elector can either cast an informal vote, write a rude word on the ballot paper or put it in his pocket and leave the polling booth. I think the result of that is a perversion of democracy. If one forces unwilling people, if one forces apathetic people, to vote they are likely to decide the margin of the vote in favour or against a particular candidate. In most cases an election is decided by one or 2 per cent of the voters. What we get is the ridiculous situation that in many cases apathy, antagonism and hostility can decide the result. I must say that I think it is perfectly ridiculous that we have the pretence of driving people to the poll. Obviously, what is important is that the right to vote should be entrenched. But the choice to vote should also be entrenched. The denial of the right to vote would be very wrong. The attempt to enforce a vote perverts the ballot box. Personally, as one who is profoundly interested in the working of the democratic system, I wish that the Parliament would look at that and not simply think that we should have some kind of machinery that makes sure that everybody has put in a vote, whether or not they want to. Of course, we have also made some recommendations about conscience votes. If it is right to give a person the right not to vote from conscience-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.01) —The report which is before us from the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform has 156 recommendations and, doubtless, will not make bedside reading for many Australians. However, the subject matter of this report is at the heart of our democracy. I am very pleased to have been a member of this Committee since its inception in 1983. I well remember meeting with the then Special Minister of State, Mr Young, to put the suggestion to him that, before the incoming Labor Government introduced any electoral reform Bill, the Australian Democrats would require such a committee to be set up. I found that he had already been thinking along those same lines. Neither he nor I had any understanding of the mess which our electoral laws were in when the Committee first met, and saw the enormous technical loopholes and problems that had arisen over the years. That Committee brought forward a series of reports which formed a series of amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It is my understanding, having looked through a number of reports, that this report is unique in what it has attempted to do. The Parliament has instituted a series of amendments and it has then taken the trouble to look at how they worked, and have a Committee to look at how they worked, in order to fine-tune them. These 156 recommendations are, by and large, a fine tuning of those original amendments. I doubt very much whether substantial changes to the electoral system will henceforth be made for quite a number of years. I think that once these are implemented the system, by and large, will work in the way in which it is then structured for quite some time; hence it is very important that this report be correct. I pay tribute to the chairmanship of Senator Robert Ray, who has had the happy knack of being able to keep a very large committee focusing on the task at hand and making sure that the report came out in time for the legislative program which will undoubtedly be required for the next election. That is no mean task, if one looks at the membership of the Committee. I think, having sat on a number of committees, that his chairmanship, certainly in my limited knowledge of chairmanships, leaves nothing to be desired in regard to the way in which he has handled that very delicate and often frustrating task. I hope that the Government moves very rapidly in its consideration of the report. It falls within the purview of the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate), who is present at the moment, to make sure that the Government moves as rapidly as possible in its consideration of these recommendations, and that it moves to place them in a legislative form as soon as possible. Some matters of political dispute are contained in this report, but remarkably few. Indeed, some of them actually did not make it into this report, as Senator Sir John Carrick has said. There were a number of points that the majority of members could have forced into this report, but they did not do so. I think it is to the credit of the Committee that it has tried to get a consensus on the very delicate matter of electoral justice for this country. In closing, I will make a political comment. If some of the current movements in the political structure in Australia turn out in the way in which the Premier of Queensland would want to see them, we will see a system which is so far removed from the one which is suggested in this report that the people of Wagga Wagga will be much appreciated, because each of their votes will be equal to four of the votes of people in Sydney. I am assuming, of course, that the system that would be implemented would be the same system that we have in Queensland. I think that that is the type of question that some people in Australia ought to think about, if the Premier of Queensland is to have his way in this country. I believe that the Federal electoral system has resulted in governments of all political complexions operating in a way which is just, fair and, to my knowledge, in looking back over the history of the Commonwealth, almost without taint. That cannot be said for any State government in the Commonwealth. But it can be said for the Commonwealth. Largely, that is a response to the electoral laws that have been in place at the Commonwealth level. They are fundamental, and constitute the quality of democracy in this country. It is vital that every citizen should realise that, and every citizen should fight strongly to retain this excellent system which has been devised. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(6.06) —I begin my contribution to this report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform by thanking not only the officers of the Australian Electoral Commission-as previous speakers have done-for what they did and the services they performed for us, but also Donald Nairn, the Secretary, who laboured continually and fruitfully to service a committee that must have been one of the more difficult committees. One of the reasons that it was a more difficult committee, of course, is that it is not very often that a committee is made up of members who know more about the subject than the expert witnesses who come before it. That is indeed unusual. The reason for that can be found by looking at the composition of the Committee. Politicians will always take a great deal of interest in the laws that got them elected last time and which they hope will get them elected next time. If we look beyond that point, the membership of this Committee includes the former secretaries of the major parties in New South Wales, our largest State; Senator Sir John Carrick, a former secretary of the Liberal Party; Charles Blunt, a former secretary of the National Party of Australia, and I, of course, was secretary of the Australian Labor Party once upon a time. The Committee has as its Chairman one of the great party apparatchiks of our time. So it is pretty obvious that this Committee would always have been difficult to serve. But having that concentration of those who, shall we say, are steeped in making their living out of electoral laws and the way in which they are administered did have its advantages. It meant that it was one of those committees of the Parliament which could look more often to the future than to just short term gain. The one thing about trying to gain short term advantages from electoral laws is that all of us have had experience of how that comes back to haunt one. So on this occasion more members of a committee were trying to make sure of a fairer system than perhaps has ever been seen previously. The first report of the Committee saw the light of day in the Senate in about November 1983. Those of us who served on the Committee in those days, I think, did the bulk of the work. That was when the major part of the work was done. The Committee's purpose, therefore, was to review what we had done in light of the 1984 election and to look at some outstanding matters. I might say that there are still some matters that we have not dealt with, and that is why I would like to support the concept of a standing committee. Electoral laws will always need to be reviewed in light of experience. We ought not to be afraid to do so when that need arises. I would like to take up one point raised yesterday by the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Ray, in his contribution, and a couple raised by Senator Sir John Carrick. Yesterday Senator Ray referred to the Committee and the way in which it looked at the administration of disclosure laws. The more one delves into disclosure laws and how they operated in the 1984 election, the more it becomes clear that there were people who sought to get around those laws, to find loopholes and exploit them. It is clear that a number of people did that successfully. I would have thought that there is a fairly big sanction-at least a moral sanction, a political sanction-on the major parties. In some respects that sanction was ignored. I, like Senator Ray, though, would like to put to the Senate that it is within the power of the Parliament to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, and to look behind any of those false and fake setups that have been used to escape the law. If we find over the course of time-in the next election, shall we say-that there has been a continuation, or indeed a growth, of some of those practices, then it is my view that the Parliament will have little alternative but to set up such a committee to look into it. So I say to all those who are about using artificial rorts to get around the electoral laws of disclosure that they should look out. We have not stopped looking ourselves and, if people are prepared to overstep the mark, I assure them that there are a number of people in this Parliament who are prepared to see that those people pay for it. In looking at some of the remarks of Senator Sir John Carrick, I believe it is true that there was a considerable degree of co-operation in the Committee. We did not divide, as we might have done, on party lines on every issue. I can remember that in the first Committee, back in 1983, Senator Ray and I had much more co-operation from Senator Macklin and Ralph Hunt than we ever did from some of the members of our own Party. It was never the sort of committee that developed along party lines. Having said that, Senator Sir John Carrick and I have had a continuing disagreement about the issue of compulsory voting. As he had seen fit to put his point of view, I think it appropriate to put mine. I do not like the spectacle of people like Mr Carter winning the presidency of the United States of America on about 22 per cent of the vote. I do not believe that is acceptable in Australia. I do not believe that it will be acceptable to see, as we now see in Great Britain, three parties sitting on 30 per cent and therefore someone able to win an election there on a small percentage of the vote. In Australia we are accustomed to seeing majority rule, and so we should. In my view, if we do not have some sanction, and indeed an increased sanction, as this Committee decided, to ensure compulsory voting, then elections can develop into a farce. I well recall in the early 1970s the then Liberal-National Party Government, or Country Party Government as it was in New South Wales, removing compulsory voting for local council elections. The first council election that took place under the new rule produced a massive turnout of 11 per cent! We cannot risk that sort of thing for national elections. There is no doubt that a whole host of Australians may seek to walk away from their obligations, but in my view the sort of consideration I mentioned leading to Mr Carter being elected on such a tiny percentage of the vote is not acceptable in a democracy that has grown up in the way this one has. Let us remember that it is one of the oldest democracies in terms of electoral laws, one of the first countries to give women the vote and has set the pattern for a lot of places. I believe that any attempt to walk away from compulsory voting or to water it down would be a backward step. I strongly disagree with Senator Sir John Carrick on that matter, and I hope that he never wins the day. The other point mentioned by Senator Sir John Carrick was that of redistribution. I strongly agree with him on the Committee's decision relating to what happens after the commissioners have produced a map, when one finds that after hearing objections the commissioners produce a map that has no resemblance to the first map to which people had objected. In the last election in New South Wales, particularly in relation to rural New South Wales, we saw some massive changes. I do not think that there was a beneficiary, but there were some individuals who lost. I do not think that any party could claim that it had been particularly hurt, although some individuals were. It would have been possible for a party to have been badly hurt, and I would have thought it in our interests to make sure it does not happen again. If the democratic process is to work we must ensure that people-every citizen, let alone the major parties-at least have the opportunity to complain or to attempt to nudge the electoral commissioners in the direction they wish. On that occasion, particularly in the second New South Wales result, no one had that opportunity. It meant that in some country seats there were massive changes, and New South Wales finished up with whole new electorates that had never been contemplated by any of the parties, individuals or organisations that made submissions. If electoral commissioners wish to do that, I earnestly hope that we can finally get around to doing something about it. The last point I wish to make relates to habitation reviews. I know people can complain about the cost. In my view if one does not clean up the rolls, one cannot have a proper democracy. There is no question, as anyone in the Australian Labor Party who has been through branch ballots knows, that there are times when the rolls just are not cleansed. I would like to see that cleansing occur once a year. It enhances democracy and can do no one any harm. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.16) —The report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that is before us today deals specifically with the 1983-84 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. As such it provides only part of the picture for anybody who is a student of the electoral system. The Committee is to be commended for the detail in which it has examined the operation of the amendments made since the election of the Hawke Government. I believe that this type of technique of looking at the effect of legislation after it has been applied should be applied to more legislation coming through this place, which would probably lead to an improvement in standards. Enormous amounts of very interesting statistical information have come out of the Australian Electoral Commission's work beyond just the scrutiny of the election. I believe that this in itself is a breath of fresh air, because previous conservative governments were not even prepared for basic information on the effects of compulsory making of references and so on to become public. However, in this process one of the Achilles heels of the Australian Electoral Commission has been exposed. This Achilles heel is the bureaucratic tendency to rearrange democracy for the convenience of its managers, instead of rearranging the procedures in the interests of democracy and of the people who are trying to elect a government. We find this in several places in the report. Although I commend overall the findings of the report, I will concentrate on some of the aspects which I believe are problematic. For instance, I refer to the dangerous proposal that dates of birth and occupations be listed on electoral rolls and that this type of information be available as a salable commodity to whoever wants it, which I believe a bad practice. I strongly support my colleagues Senator Macklin and Senator Haines in their dissent on this particular recommendation. I believe that we should be strengthening the measures to protect privacy and not be supporting new steps along the road to corporate or fascist states. We have just been through the bureaucratically driven exercise of the identity card and we may have to deal with the concept in another form in the near future. My approach will not change when it comes to the protection of civil liberties. A second area where the Australian Electoral Commission has shown its true colours is in its approach to suggestions that there are technical deficiencies in the procedures for Senate scrutinies. I believe that this attitude is most unfortunate in a body looking at its own procedures. Honourable senators will recall that the first attempt at a counting procedure in the 1983 legislation failed to guarantee even that the right number of senators would be elected. The problem was that those directing the drafting did not stick to basic principles. The confusion they created between `exhausted' and `non-transferable' votes led to the possibility of too many senators being elected under the unfortunate definition of what was called a reducing quota. This is highly technical stuff, but it is what we pay the Commission for. I believe another oversight led to the possibility of too few senators being elected because none of those remaining in the scrutiny could achieve a quota. These problems were patched up on the run after Senator Macklin and the late Senator Missen drew attention to the difficulties. The solution, however, suffers from a defect which can give voters more than one vote's influence in the scrutiny. It is quite a technical area so I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a document from the Proportional Representation Society of Australia. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA SENATE COUNTING PROCEDURE OPEN TO MANIPULATION ``Poor wording of the counting rules in Senate elections means that some voters can end up with more than one vote,'' said Jack Wright, President of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia. ``In some circumstances, voters can achieve more for a candidate they want to assist by giving a slightly earlier preference to someone from the major parties who is sure to be elected.'' This anomaly has been documented by the Society which is alarmed at the prospect of its use in the South Australian Legislative Council and other elections around the nation where proportional representation applies. ``The problem occurs in the way that successful candidates' surplus votes are apportioned. Each ballot paper which has gone to a successful candidate plays the same part, irrespective of whether it is a first preference or its transfer value is only 0.1. It is possible for the transfer value to increase, even though that should never happen because the transfer value represents the part of the vote that has not yet been used in electing candidates.'' The Proportional Representation Society is urging the South Australian Parliament not to let through a defective Bill which will require extensive amendment in the near future. It will draw to its attention ways in which the present problem can be overcome, and the whole scrutiny procedure streamlined and simplified without making voters' efforts less effective. EXAMPLE WHERE THE SENATE COUNTING PROCEDURE IS DEFICIENT At an ordinary election for the South Australian Legislative Council, there are 11 vacancies. Once the total number of formal votes is known, this is divided by 12 and the next highest whole number is called the quota. Any candidate whose progress total is at least as large as the quota is guaranteed election. The quota is the smallest number of votes that eleven different candidates could each get, but not twelve, in the case of the Legislative Council. When a candidate is elected, votes in excess of the quota are distributed to continuing candidates in accordance with the wishes of those who supported the elected candidate. The transfer value for any ballot paper represents how much of it hasn't yet been used in electing candidates: it should therefore never go up in value. To simplify calculations, it is supposed that all votes for candidates in a particular party have first preference for the candidate at the top of the ticket, and follow down that list before indicating anyone else. Formal Votes-779,998 Quota-65,000 Party A-350,000 Party B-300,000 Party C-57,998 Candidate D-70,000 Three candidates are elected on first preferences. When it comes to examine the papers that elected Candidate D, the first two candidates in both Party A and Party B have already been elected. The transfer value for these papers is 5,000/70,000 = 1/14. Suppose that 28,000 papers have the third candidates in Party A and Party B next, and the other 14,000 go to the person heading Party C. 285,000 votes was the progress total of the second candidate in Party A, and 220,000 will go on to the third, taking his progress total to 222,000: altogether, 378,000 papers contribute to his election, so the Senate procedure makes the transfer value 157,000/378,000 = 157/378. This means that the 28,000 papers which were previously worth 2,000 votes are now worth 28,000 X 157/378 or roughly 11,630 votes, even though they have just helped someone else get elected, and should therefore have lost some of their value. In other words, those who voted first for Candidate D, then for the third candidate in Party A and then for Party C assist Party C nearly six times as much as those who put Candidate D first and then went straight on to Party C. To put it bluntly, you can do more for a candidate by not voting for him until you've gone across to someone else you anticipate will be elected! This opens up possibilities for tactical voting in certain circumstances. No fair method of proportional representation gives advantage to a voter who falsifies his or her true wishes. It is relatively straightforward to remedy the situation by sticking more closely to first principles. The problem has arisen because the papers of value 1/14 and the Party A votes which go to the third candidate at value 22/35 are treated as equals in the split-up of the surplus. If you take account of vote value, you don't run into the same problem. By amending other aspects of the scrutiny procedure you can also cut down the time taken to do the counting while dealing with surpluses in a more sophisticated way. In this particular case, the ticket votes would take up 220,000/222,000 of the surplus and the smaller parcel would determine what happens to the other 2,000/222,000: in other words the 28,000 papers would have total value 157,000 X 2/222 = 1,415 votes to the next highest integer, and their transfer value therefore be under 1/14. There is no excuse for persisting with a method that can distort the wishes of the voters, especially when it is easy to fix it. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The document was drawn to my attention in 1985 when the South Australian Parliament was considering changes to its electoral legislation. I would like to summarise the points from the example. If a pile of ballot papers helps to elect someone we would expect its value to decrease as a result of the election of that person. This need not happen under the Senate procedures. That leaves the way open for tactical voting and other subterfuges which I believe should have no part in any fair electoral system. Voters should not have any second thoughts that they can achieve a better result for their favoured candidate by falsifying the expression of their wishes on the ballot paper. That is, people should be able to vote straight-forwardly and have their vote achieve the end which it appears to achieve. The problem can be rectified in a way which does not unduly prolong the scrutiny. The Committee has already recommended bulk exclusions and the deferral of transfers of surpluses where relevant. Transfer values still need to be tackled. The attitude of the Australian Electoral Commission on this matter was most unsatisfactory. I shall deal with the technical points of this case at a later stage, perhaps in the adjournment debate. The Joint Select Committee has gone through the procedures fairly thoroughly for letting people have a fair vote. It has suggested quite a number of improvements. For instance, it has called for a simplification of the procedure for identifying voters on polling day before giving them ballot papers. It is well known that the formal questions that were supposed to be put were often not put by electoral officers. People whose English is not good can be intimidated if the procedures are rigorously followed. The Joint Committee, in this report, was not able to examine ways in which the voters wishes could be implemented more effectively. In the last House of Representative selection nearly 4,000,000 voters were disenfranchised because of the single-member electorate system. Their votes were of no value at all. They may as well not have turned up to vote in the election and many may have chosen to do that to get away from such a travesty. We need to adopt a proportional representational system, preferably a system such as the Tasmanian Hare-Clark model which allows voters to sort out the people whom they want as their representatives. The Australian Democrats' policy with which I fully concur is for optional preferential voting in multi-member electorates. I believe that this is the only fair way of voting. The Tasmanian Hare-Clark system comes closest to this ideal in Australia. The Tasmanian House of Assembly is the only lower House in which one vote one value is a matter of fact and not just an assertion. Not only does it treat parties and individual candidates fairly but it also leaves the real power in the hands of the voters-not just the string-pullers and apparatchiks in the Party machine. The rotation of candidates on the ballot papers and the fact that no by- elections are necessary also make this a less expensive option in the long run for people. We should be re-examining very closely the prospect of being able to fairly elect our House of Representatives in a proper way by using proportional representation and by adopting an optional preferential system in multi-member electorates. I commend such a process to the Senate. Although we do not have that, I believe that the proposals put forward in this report, in general, are excellent. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(6.25) —in reply-I thank all honourable senators for their very valuable contributions to this debate. There is not really a lot to reply to in what has been brought up this afternoon. Concerning the remarks by Senator Haines on rolls, to some extent the Government will have to consider the attitude of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in its recommendation on this. The Government will give fairly detailed consideration to all aspects of the dissenting report, because, as we have said, we want the Electoral Act to be as bipartisan as possible. I am sure that the new Minister will read not only the recommendations in the majority report, but also will give proper emphasis to the dissenting report. However, I think that Senator Haines tends to take the argument on the rolls too far. Rolls must be as public as possible. There may be a very valid argument as to including date of birth but I do not think that there is regarding including occupation or gender on the rolls. They should be there. They distinguish one voter from another for electoral officials and others. Honourable senators should just remember that the wider the access people have to the rolls the cleaner they will be. We cannot have secret rolls where the general public is denied access because that can lead to roll rigging and such activities evolving. So whilst we would like to see people's privacy protected as much as possible we also have to protect the integrity of the roll. Senator Harradine, not for the first time I guess, has criticised the voting system that we have introduced into the Senate. He knows that he will not convince us of that prior to the next Federal election, but no doubt it will continue to be given consideration. Senator Harradine mentioned-and I do not agree with him-the views of Professor Rydon who was reported in the paper the other day as making some very uncomplimentary remarks about all politicians. I can say that we have to impersonate a brick wall and cop it when we are criticised, but if I am ever described as a political scientist I will know that I have gone a long way down, well below used car salesmen or anything else. In general, and I must exempt Professor Hughes, when political scientists have come before a committee they have not really shown much skill or credit to their trade. Senator Vigor mentioned the rolls. That matter may or may not be accommodated in the upcoming legislation. He commented at length on the Senate counting system and scrutiny. I admit that in 1983-84 that aspect was rushed. We have sought to correct some of those anomalies but Senator Vigor would understand that counting systems tend to bring out a peculiar type of person in society who is never satisfied. People interested in electoral systems are very much like conservationists. They always want to tinker around the edges. I assure the honourable senator that the bulk exclusion method that we are adopting is not aimed at him or me; nor are delayed transfers. I think we almost have the system right. I cannot guarantee it but we should remember that the faults in the previous system will probably occur only as often as Halley's Comet visits our solar system. It is very unlikely that the result would ever be affected-nor will some of the criticisms now. It is a one in a million chance. If the problems continue to exist we will deal with them. On the final point of proportional representation for the House of Representatives, that will happen over my dead body and the dead body of everyone on this side of the chamber. The concept has no appeal for us. Democracy is not just a matter of everyone being represented but of everyone having stable and decent government. Whilst the Democrats are in a minority position and it is in their self-interest to use that minority position to dictate to the majority-or more often than not, the majority-that is not in the interests of the Australian public. I have looked at proportional representation as it works in Israel, Germany and Italy. In my view it is a total failure. It leads to unstable governments and the absolute tyranny in the end of the minority. I think that if this country ever adopted that system it would be far worse off. I know that the Tasmanian example has been quoted, but if we go back through Tasmanian history we find that all sorts of shysters have held the balance of power there over the years. No, perhaps `shysters' is too strong a word; I withdraw it. However, I remember that in 1968 a candidate who was, let us say, probably a very good friend of the bookmakers held the balance of power in that State and was able to dictate all sorts of government policy, having been elected by a quota of 14 per cent of the people in one electorate. If Democrat senators think that is a good system because they happen at this stage to be in a minority, I accept that, but I do not think that it is good for the country. I very much doubt whether our colleagues in the Opposition support proportional representation. My final comment on this matter is that I have only known of one party that has ever stuck to its principles over proportional representation. When the French socialists were elected in 1982, having been in opposition for 20 or 30 years, naturally they supported proportional representation and naturally they introduced it. Now they hold about one-third of the members in the House of Assembly in France. It is very unlikely that a majority party will ever introduce proportional representation. We do not mind slashing our wrists over some matters, but certainly not over that. I thank honourable senators for their contributions and I look forward to the new Minister, Senator Tate, bringing in the legislation soon so that we can rediscuss some of these matters. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —I present the first report of 1987 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 1, dated 18 February 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(6.34) —Before the debate was interrupted I was talking about the Chernobyl accident and its possible effect on the expansion of the industry. Of course, this accident was taken up very vigorously by the anti-nuclear movement when it occurred. I noted that earlier in the debate Senator Sanders mentioned that he had been very happy to talk with the Russians-in fact, he preferred to talk to the Russians-on matters reflecting to nuclear issues. I thought it might be appropriate just to mention the words of General Secretary Gorbachev in his speech to the twenty-seventh Communist Party Congress when he said that the Soviet Union planned to put 40,000 megawatts of new nuclear capacity into service between now and 1990. This is about 2 1/2 times the amount of extra generating capacity of output during the last five-year plan. Currently nuclear power appears to provide about 10 or 11 per cent of the total electricity in the Soviet Union and by 1990 it should reach about 20 per cent. Mr Gorbachev specifically targeted coal and oil for the failure to meet the country's electricity production. The question must be asked why the left wing of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats are so totally opposed to the peaceful use of uranium when both the Eastern bloc and the Western democratic countries have embraced nuclear power as a form of electricity production which is economically competitive and far cleaner and safer than oil and coal fired power generation. Perhaps the answer could be found in a statement from Mr Pat Clancy, the former President of the pro-Soviet Socialist Party of Australia and member of the World Peace Council, which he made at the South Pacific and Asian Trade Union Unity Conference in 1979. Mr Clancy explained that nuclear energy could be used for peaceful purposes but he said that it depended on who used it. He went on: In Australia we are opposed to it. It must be publicly owned. Whenever it is in private hands and for profit, it poses great danger. We support its use in socialist countries, but not in Australia. In Socialist countries it is necessary and safe for the generation of electricity. There has never been a nuclear accident in the USSR and there never will be. Waste is dumped where there is no danger to other countries. I found that quite an amazing statement. According to this particular well-known communist, nuclear power is necessary and safe for the generation of electricity in socialist countries but not, apparently, in Western democratic societies. It is even more amazing when one considers that nuclear power stations in the Soviet Union, until recently, were built without the massively reinforced structural domes which cover them in the Western world where they are very strictly constructed according to specifications laid down by the International Atomic Energy Commission. I find it very difficult to understand why people such as Mr Clancy can approve the use of nuclear power in Russia but object to it throughout the Western world. I support the general thrust of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986, subject of course to the amendment that is being put forward by the Opposition. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(6.37) —I rise to support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 and recall that it is actually part of a legislative package which comprises this Bill, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill 1986 and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill 1986. This piece of legislation is entirely in keeping with this Government's consistent and persistent approach to nuclear non-proliferation and its commitment to nuclear safeguards, as well as its strong support for all steps which contribute to maintaining world peace and moving towards nuclear disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. As I have listened to the last few contributors to this debate, I have found a three-way view of this question. The Opposition says that one of the things that it would promote is an expansion of the nuclear fuel cycle. Senator Jessop said that he and his colleagues would not only increase uranium mining in Australia but also support a move to the enrichment field, even to the manufacturing of fuel rods. However, he did not exactly tell us how he would deal with the nuclear waste. He mentioned synroc, but that was more in terms of an exportable commodity in this country. It seems to me that the Opposition while not violently opposed to the general principles of this piece of legislation, wanted to argue not so much about nuclear safeguards as about its preferred position of expanding both the uranium and the nuclear fuel industries in this country. On the other hand, we have had Senator Vallentine developing with fair elaboration the head in the sand approach-that is, our total removal from deliberations in this area and from the uranium industry. In other words, she wants a total cessation of the mining of uranium, let alone the supply of it. It seems that those approaches are certainly not those of the Government, and I do not believe they are the preferred ones. The Government takes the view that neither meets the needs which are currently confronting us and which are addressed in this Bill. The Government's approach is responsible, thoughtful and committed, and it fits consistently with its approach to world peace and its initiatives in this area. I think the Government takes the hard road of proper and considered decisions about complex questions. It has said, and continues to say, that the mining and export of uranium will continue under it in a strictly regulated manner and with strict safeguards. These safeguards are specifically addressed in this legislation, and they add further to the initiatives and the safeguards already developed in this country by this Government and governments that came before it. The Bill specifies a system of permits which will be necessary for anyone who wishes to possess or transport nuclear material. These permits will not be granted by the Minister unless the Director of Safeguards is satisfied that appropriate procedures and adequate facilities and security are in place for the possession of that material or for the necessary association with the transport of that material. With those permits the Bill also allows a proper and more comprehensive auditing of nuclear material in this country than exists at the moment, although I think it ought to be said that the understanding of the Australian Government and of the industry of where any nuclear material is in this country is very well managed, controlled and understood at the moment. In some ways the permits develop that system even further, but I do not believe I would like to leave anybody with the understanding that at the moment we are wanton and insufficient in our provision for management of nuclear material in this country-not at all. In introducing this legislation the Government sees the permit system as a way of further addressing the need to account very thoroughly for where the material is, how it is being stored, how it is being treated and, as an issue of some very real concern for South Australians, the provision for its proper transport and so on. I do not claim that South Australia is the only State with that kind of need, but it certainly is a real concern for South Australians. The Bill will also enable the Minister to appoint inspectors who will have the powers of inspection as set out in the Bill. Australia is under an international obligation to allow the inspectors to inspect nuclear material in Australia and it has designed this legislation to give that inspection role statutory authority. One of the points that Senator Vallentine raised was the difficulties in this area that go to secrecy-secrecy about where materials are, how much material there is and so on. One of the consequences of this legislation is that the Government will be very much aware of and will make more available, because of reports, the clear understanding of nuclear material-where it is, how it is stored and so on. The point raised by Senator Vallentine about the importance of being able to account for material is a real one. I do not believe this Government shies away from that. I think this legislation will allow further steps to be taken to account for that material. I believe we solve secrecy difficulties not by getting out of uranium mining but in terms of the way this legislation proposes, and that is by finding proper solutions to the problems raised. The next important issue that emerges is: What do we mean by nuclear material for the purposes of this legislation? The definitions of nuclear material, associated material, associated equipment and associated technology are important and are clearly spelled out in the early sections of the legislation. The important thing to appreciate is that radio-isotopes in common use, for example, are not safeguardable-I am not sure that that would be my word, but it is in this piece of paper from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), so I will read it-and the legislation therefore does not apply to them. It is important to reassure people that, if anyone had a worry about whether permits would be required for, and the legislation would apply to, radio-isotopes in common use, they do not fall within the ambit of this legislation. The system of safeguards operated by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the national safeguards bodies such as the Australian Safeguards Office is designed to provide assurance that international obligations accepted by states are being met and, further, to enable the detection and deterrence of any non-compliance with those obligations. We should acknowledge that safeguard measures are in place and will be further strengthened by this legislation, but they are absolutely vital to include maintenance and verification of detailed nuclear accounting and record keeping. Some people are concerned and make the point, as Senator Vallentine did, that we do not know where the material goes and that we cannot say what is happening about it. That ought not to be an argument that justifies Australia's not accounting for its nuclear material. I do not buy Senator Vallentine's argument that we cannot say what happens when we sell it, but one thing that we can say is that this legislation associated with the safeguards and conditions already in place ensures that we are putting our house in order first and that also, through our International Atomic Energy Agency agreements, we are able to take further steps to guarantee as much as possible assurances about possession and distribution of the world's nuclear material. I do not think we can settle for complacency in the concern about the questions raised by Senator Vallentine, and I do not believe that means that what we are doing ought to be dismissed or taken as having no value. It could be said that Australia has been exemplary in the way it has behaved in terms of nuclear material and safeguards on this material. If we can stand tall because of the proper way we are behaving, we can also bring some further pressure to bear to ensure that those sorts of levels of responsible behaviour in relation to safeguards apply as much as possible in all the other signatory countries to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I also would have to ask Senator Vallentine whether she wishes to condemn so many people who are currently getting their heating and cooking power from nuclear electricity to the consequence of a denial of that source of power. We may prefer a better world, but we do not solve the difficulties by making our world worse. These are complex questions and, as Senator Jessop alluded, any source of power carries with it potential problems. In relation to the coal industry, the present real problems are those of pollution, supply, storage and so on as well as dangers. Anyone has only to consider the acid rain fallout from coal fired stations to know that those questions of pollution and difficulties do not apply only in the nuclear fuel area. It is also true that in the last decade or more a number of countries in the Northern Hemisphere have come to rely considerably on nuclear power for their electricity. I do not believe we can lightly move to take no regard of the consequences of denying those countries that source of power. I say again to Senator Vallentine that such problems are not addressed by a burying-one's-head-in-the-sand approach nor from Australia's withdrawing from the supply of uranium. It is my view that the sign of a civilised community is that it can define problems and seek solutions. While it is sure that our society, if not our societies, have some fair record of creating problems, I think we also have some record of trying to define and address those problems. I am not sanctioning the problems, but I do not believe that turning away from them is any way to confront the issues before us, nor do I believe that Australia's withdrawal from supply of uranium or its requirement of safeguards in its country and therefore its contribution to safeguards in all uranium supplying countries as much as possible through those international agencies is a bad thing at all. It goes a long way to requiring further considered evaluation of the difficulties and the seeking of solutions. As I listened to the earlier debate, it seemed that people were not so interested in the points raised in this legislation in respect to safeguards. In fact, we have been listening to a debate about whether uranium should be supplied or not and/or a debate about nuclear weapons, nuclear power and other sources of energy. I do not think any of those things should distract us from a world-wide, terrible concern about the prospects of a nuclear war. I do not suppose that we even have to look at a nuclear war scenario, though that I think is the worst scenario which concerns the majority of people of this world. I think that power station accidents, some of which have been mentioned, cause the same sort of terrible concern. We have seen reportage of disasters in the United States of America, England and recently in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. These reports betray exactly why people are so concerned to address so seriously the issues of nuclear fuel, nuclear energy and nuclear power sources. It would probably be splendid if we did not have to. But we have a world that is hungry for power. We have a world that needs power for industry production. We have a world that needs power to survive against the cold, which is probably not so obvious in Australia but which certainly is in the Northern Hemisphere. One only has to read of the number of people who froze to death in the recent Northern Hemisphere storms to know that heating is a very essential element for survival in our world community. I think all of this means that the preferred way in which to address these issues is the way in which this legislation and this Government are doing so. It seems to be the implication that, in introducing this legislation and in being part of the uranium supply to the world, the Government is open to the criticism that is not seriously concerned in opposing nuclear arms or the increase in arsenals that we know is taking place in some countries. I think that is a gross misrepresentation of what this Government's position is. I would like now to turn to some of the initiatives that I think fit very well with this Government's legislation in terms of clarifying its commitment to opposing the increase of nuclear arms and its commitment to world peace and nuclear disarmament. Mr Hayden, during his visit to Moscow, said: The choice is no longer between peace and war but between peace and extinction. We must therefore learn to live together or we will surely die together. He went on in a very useful paper, which in large part I drew on in a speech in the Senate on the adjournment on 28 March 1985, to list the initiatives of this Government up until then in this whole area of addressing peace, disarmament, the supply of uranium and the nuclear fuel cycle. The point made in that paper is that everybody wants a world free of nuclear weapons and that really the debate is not about whether or not that is the question but about how in fact we can best arrive at that. It is this Government's view that there is no easy path to disarmament. I do not believe that there is too much difference of opinion about that. Whatever we say and however many words are written down or spoken in United Nations forums, it is quite clear that people hasten very slowly to reduce the nuclear arms already stockpiled around the world. The Australian Government has taken a number of steps that are open to it in proceeding along its consistent path in this area. It has set in train an arms control and disarmament program that addresses the issue and looks at the complexities. Therefore, it is not likely to find a simplistic solution in this area. The Government appreciates that it is a complex question and that therefore one can tackle it only by serious and deliberative approaches. The Government's policy of nuclear deterrence, associated with the importance of verification of arms control agreements and the acknowledgment of the need for safeguards and strict regulations in the supply of uranium, adds a particular seriousness to the voice it brings into international forums on these questions. It is pleased to do that. The Government recognises the importance of verification and it also appreciates the importance of some of the sites in Australia that contribute to that verification program. If it is not possible to actually check from country to country what is present, other methods of verification have to be taken. This Government sees its role in that process as very important. As a major and responsible supplier of uranium it promotes and defends the only effective arms control and nuclear disarmament program in existence, that is, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That Treaty is supported by the super-powers and its principal aim is to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons. I think it is also important to distinguish between the horizontal and vertical proliferation of weapons. Sadly, while we might be able to say that there has been some success in the restraint of horizontal proliferation, to this point-and we might not be so clear about this-the current vertical proliferation of recent years has certainly been very dramatic. This is a matter of the gravest concern for most citizens in this country. It is certainly a matter of concern, as one understands the position from peace protests and what is written, for most people around the world. The Australian Government acknowledges the contribution that it can make in this area consequent on it being a responsible supplier of uranium. It is a responsible supplier and this legislation is part of that obligation. The Government has taken other initiatives. It has taken the initiative to create a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. It keeps alive its efforts to create a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean. On a number of occasions it has taken steps to encourage the super-powers towards a total ban on all forms of nuclear testing. I can understand the disappointment, if not the cynicism, of people who despair of anything ever happening. I have heard the criticism, as I am sure others have, that all they do is talk and talk and nothing ever happens. But I think it is better that we continue to talk than do nothing. It is better that we continue to talk than blow each other up. While we may say that the comprehensive test ban treaty has not been put in place, has not even begun to be seriously debated, we can say that the Australian Government has pushed for that time and time again and will continue to do so. I think we should be very supportive of those initiatives by the Australian Government. The Government has also been very clear in its opposition to French nuclear testing, and that is entirely consistent with its encouragement for the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. The Government has also done any number of things, within the limitations of what can be done, to try to freeze the arms race. Again, that cynicism and disappointment of people that nothing seems to happen can sometimes not only confuse people about the efforts that this Government has made, but can also make them concerned, if that is the best we can do and we are not doing much, whether they should continue their encouragement. Again, I say, we certainly should. The Government has done other things. For example, it appointed the first ever Ambassador for Disarmament. It has established a peace studies centre at the Australian National University. Currently, initiatives for peace studies in school curricula are proceeding. The Government has also established a senior disarmament adviser position and a peace and disarmament branch in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I think all of these initiatives indicate that it is very clear that these points are on the Government's agenda. They are points that have been brought to the attention of the Australian community at every opportunity by our Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), by our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), by a number of our ministerial representatives, and certainly by most back benchers that I know. I think the important thing is that we keep the debate going, that we keep information flowing to people, and that we do not solve the difficulties in this area either by burying our heads in the sand or by promoting and expanding without giving much thought to the supply and enrichment of uranium in this country. I am not sure what the Opposition would say about safeguards. I do not believe that it will be opposing this legislation but I do not believe that it has comprehensively thought through the consequences of its policy of expansion. I think we have this clear commitment from the Government. I think this legislation fits in very properly and appropriately with that and I think it is beholden for all of us to acknowledge the contribution of this Government and the steps that it can take within those limitations in the international forum. I think it is very important that we remind the Australian people of that at every opportunity. The awareness and concern of the people in this country are clear from the last election vote if we have a look at the number of people who wanted to support the Nuclear Disarmament Party. It is also important that people who vote like that for an idea do not necessarily support what will be done to implement that idea. This Government responsibly addresses that question. This piece of legislation is part of that process. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(7.02) —in reply-This has been inevitably a wide ranging debate and I thank a number of honourable senators for their contributions to it. It may be recalled that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 gives effect to all Australia's international non-proliferation obligations which require domestic legislation. These obligations arise under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, under Australia's safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, under Australia's bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements with other countries and the European Atomic Energy Community, and also under the Physical Protection Convention which has not yet been ratified but very shortly will be. The Bill also provides the legislative basis for the operation of the Australian Safeguards Office in administering Australia's safeguards system. This is a somewhat unique piece of legislation. I do not think there is any equivalent for it elsewhere in the world. As I have said, it brings together all our domestic obligations that are a part of this complex interrelationship of international obligations on this tremendously important question. Inevitably, given this kind of subject matter, the debate tends to get wide ranging and I certainly do not propose to embark upon any kind of summary or attempt to deal with the issues which were raised, for example, in relation to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone and related matters of that kind which are only tangentially relevant to the Bill now before us. In winding up I want to confine my remarks just to a few words about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its effectiveness which has been called into question by a number of speakers and I also want to respond, as I think appropriate, to a number of particular matters and questions that were raised by Senator Durack in his opening speech for the Opposition. It may be that we can shorten the Committee stage as a result of my dealing with these matters at this time. Senator Durack —Provided you answer them properly. Senator GARETH EVANS —There is every chance. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which opened for signature in 1968 and which came into force in 1970 with now, I think, 136 signatories represents, as has often been said, a bargain between the nuclear and non-nuclear states. Under Article 2, the non-nuclear states renounced their intention to acquire nuclear weapons and, under Article 3, they accepted what are described as full scope IAEA safeguards on all nuclear activities within their territories in order to verify the observance of their obligations under Article 2. By contrast, under Article 1 of the Treaty, the nuclear weapons states undertook not to transfer nuclear weapons to a non-nuclear state or to assist such a state to acquire them. In return for those undertakings the nuclear weapons states and other countries also recognised under Article 4 the right of all countries to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Under Article 6 there is a general undertaking to work for a reduction in nuclear proliferation not only horizontally, that is, by way of extension to other countries that do not presently have nuclear weapons but also, as Senator Crowley was saying, vertically; that is to say, the reduction of the stockpiles of weapons held by the existing weapons states. I do not believe that there is justification for the criticism that one hears from time to time directed against this treaty and which surfaced in the responses of a few speakers in the course of this debate. It is perfectly true that so far as the obligation to wind back vertical proliferation is concerned the record has not been spectacularly successful. On the contrary, it has been a matter of profound disappointment that the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-the two leading nuclear weapons states-have found it so manifestly impossible to honour the spirit of their alleged commitment to arms reduction. It is a tragedy that Reykjavik and other enterprises of this kind have so far borne such little fruit but we remain hopeful that that process will continue and we are doing our best as a nation to support reductions by the super-powers. So far as horizontal proliferation is concerned it has to be said that the record has been very much more successful that many people hoped would be the case a generation ago. Around 30 years ago it was anticipated that by the 1980s there could be as many as 20 or 30 nuclear weapons states. But the reality is, of course, that there are still only five acknowledged nuclear weapons states, although there are varying degrees of concern about the performance in this respect of a number of other countries, including, conspicuously in recent times, Israel, but also South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, India and Pakistan. It should be noted that all of the countries are `vigorously antagonistic opponents' of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a point that, in a sense, has its own significance. It says much for the fundamental reality and significance of the treaty that it should be subject to so much negative attention by those countries that are obviously reluctant to observe its terms. But certainly the Treaty has been regarded as significant by many countries in enhancing their sense of security when countries around them have been prepared to enter into and accept its terms. Certainly Australia has regarded the thing as being very significant by virtue of the regional acceptance of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations and countries of the South Pacific as well. For people to argue as they do that the NPT is meaningless because it has failed totally and assuredly to prevent the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons is somewhat akin to the old suggestion and argument that one should not have a system of law because there will always be criminals. The point manifestly does not follow. The final thing I would say about the NPT is that there is plenty of evidence that the parties to it-the great majority of the countries of the world-have observed its strictures and have taken its terms very seriously indeed. So far as matters such as the non-diversion of uranium and nuclear material from civil to military purposes are concerned there has been no diversion ever recorded from any safeguarded facility by the International Atomic Energy Agency. I and the Government believe that this impressive safeguards record reflects the political influence of the system as a deterrent as well as the technical effectiveness of safeguards themselves. It is that particular system that this Bill is directed towards shoring up as best we can within Australia. Let me now quickly deal with a number of the matters that were raised by Senator Durack. He sought an indication as to when the Physical Protection Convention would be ratified. Consultations are currently taking place with the states concerning administrative procedures under that convention. It is expected that Australia will be able to ratify it when those consultations are complete and when that portion of the Bill dealing with this aspect is brought into force. This may take some few more months. Dealing with the states is always difficult in this respect but we hope that the issue will be resolved in a matter of weeks. Certainly we are anxious to proceed as rapidly as we can to that ratification. Senator Durack secondly sought information on the results and publicity regarding holdings of safeguardable nuclear material, equipment or technology. I can say that as a result of the publicity following the introduction of the Bill the Australian Safeguards Office has received approximately 150 responses from persons holding nuclear material and associated items. Major holders are the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the uranium mining companies. There are small holdings of material coming within the definition by organisations such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, universities, hospitals with radiotherapy equipment, industrial radiography firms and school laboratories. Senator Durack expressed a concern that academic freedom might be affected by the requirement to have permits for associated technology. I think it would be most useful and certainly quickest for me to seek to have incorporated in Hansard an exchange of correspondence I had a little while ago with the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties in which those questions were raised in a quite detailed way and were subject to a quite detailed reply. I seek leave to have that correspondence incorporated in Hansard. Senator Durack —Is that a letter from Mr Robertson? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes. I gave Senator Durack a copy of that some time ago. If the honourable senator wants to raise anything further in the Committee stage, we will deal with it then. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES 149 St Johns Road, Glebe 2037 Telephone: 660-7562 October 21, 1986 Senator Gareth Evans, Minister for Resources and Energy, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION (SAFEGUARDS) BILL 1986 The Council congratulates you upon the replacement of the Atomic Energy Act 1953 with this Bill. We are pleased to see that the concerns we expressed about the cold war provisions of that Act have been substantially met. There is, however, one difficulty with the Bill which we would appreciate the Government addressing. Clause 26 of the Bill punishes the disclosure of documents containing information concerning the secondary processing of nuclear material or the ``design, production, operation, testing or use'' of nuclear weapons or other such explosive devices. The clause also punishes the disclosure of documents ``to which a prescribed international agreement applies and that is of a kind declared by the Minister, in writing, to be information to which'' the definition of associated technology applies. The first category of document, the disclosure of which is punishable, is objectionable on the grounds of width and uncertainty. For example, the publication of the fact that Indonesia has tested a nuclear weapon would be a criminal offence if the source of the information was not ``lawfully available, whether within Australia of outside Australia, to the public or a section thereof''. It is highly unlikely that the testing of a nuclear weapon by Indonesia would be published by the Indonesian Government to the world at large, and it is most probable that the discovery of such information would be contrary to Indonesian law. Most rational people would agree that the interests of non proliferation of nuclear weaponry are probably better served by the disclosure of the extent or likelihood of such proliferation than otherwise. The second category of information, the disclosure of which is punishable, is supplied not by the Bill but, in the most amorphous manner possible, by ministerial declaration. This is an extraordinary provision which permits the creation of serious criminal offences by executive rather than parliamentary action, the foundation for which may be an international agreement whose contents will rarely reach the degree of precision ordinarily required for the definition of criminal offences. The Council can well understand the legitimate concern of the Federal Government to restrict the availability of information on the construction of nuclear weapons in order to prevent their proliferation or use by terrorist groups. The effect of the Bill is, however, much wider than this narrow concern and, as presently drafted, it punishes disclosures of information on topics of public interest where such disclosures have been made in good faith and without any intention to encourage proliferation. We cannot see any difficulty in modifying clause 26 so as to exclude what are undoubtedly unintended consequences. I am copying this letter to Senators Chaney and Haines as I understand that the Bill will be debated in this Senate session. I look forward to your reply. Best regards, Yours sincerely, TIM ROBERTSON Secretary Senator The Hon. Gareth Evans QC Minister for Resources and Energy Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Mr Tim Robertson Secretary Council for Civil Liberties Box 201, PO Glebe, N.S.W. 2037 Dear Mr Robertson, I refer to your letter of 21 October 1986 concerning the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 and welcome your comments on the Bill. Clause 26 of the Bill is not intended to have the effect ascribed to it in your letter. The intention of the clause is to control the dissemination of technical information of proliferation significance, not information on topics of public interest, and I believe that the drafting of the clause achieves this effect. As a preliminary comment, your use of the phrase ``secondary processing'' of nuclear material implies a much wider interpretation of the information being controlled than is in fact the case. The scope of clause 26 is determined by the definition of ``associated technology'' in sub-clause 4 (1) which refers to ``enrichment'' and ``reprocessing''. Both these terms are defined in sub-clause 4 (1) and both have a well understood technical meaning in nuclear terminology. One or both of these processes are essential prerequisites to the production of nuclear weapons. I do not see that the Bill would in any way inhibit the publication of information that a foreign country has tested a nuclear weapon. Clause 26 does not apply to information that is lawfully available ``in Australia or outside Australia'': there is no requirement that information sourced from within a foreign country has to be lawfully available in that country so long as it is lawfully available in Australia. Moreover, the intention of the clause is to prohibit the dissemination of information that could be applied, as distinct from being merely related, to the testing or to the design, production or use of a nuclear weapon, and could thus assist a country to test or to design, produce or use such a weapon. The operative words in the definition of ``associated technology'' are ``applicable primarily to'' and I believe that the first category of documents defined in the Bill has neither the width nor the uncertainty suggested in your letter. As regards the second category of information, a ``prescribing international agreement'' is defined in the Bill to mean an agreement listed in Schedule 5 to the Bill or an agreement prescribed by regulation. An agreement that may be prescribed by regulation must be an agreement in relation to nuclear safeguards or the peaceful use of nuclear material or associated items. All such agreements are on the public record. The agreements that are envisaged to be prescribed by regulation are agreements of the same kind as listed in the Bill which might be negotiated and entered into by Australia at some future date. For example, a nuclear safeguards agreement has been signed with Switzerland but it is not yet in force. It will be prescribed by regulation when it does come into force. Some of the prescribed agreements have a provision controlling the transfer of nuclear technology between the two countries. If a document containing information on such nuclear technology is transferred from the other country Australia will be under an obligation to control that information in accordance with the agreement. The Minister's powers of declaration are therefore strictly limited to information to which the agreement applies and could be effectively exercised only when a particular document is transferred between the two countries. I am sending copies of this letter to Senators Chaney, Durack and Haines. Your sincerely, GARETH EVANS Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Durack sought a further explanation of why the legislation is being enacted now, after a system of safeguards has been functioning satisfactorily without legislation for several years. All we can say is that it has been functioning satisfactorily only because of the good will and co-operation of the holders of nuclear material, especially the mining companies and the AAEC. That situation might well be expected to continue, but one cannot guarantee it, and we think it needs shoring up. Moreover, a legally enforceable system is necessary because Australia has international obligations to fulfil and we see it as inappropriate under those circumstances to rely wholly on that evanescent quality of good will for the permanent future. The final concern that I noted in Senator Durack's speech-he may have others which he wants to pursue, and he can do so in the Committee stage-was that universities and industry may be affected by unnecessary red tape. All we can say here is that the Australian Safeguards Office is a very small unit within my Department which has been functioning very efficiently for a number of years. It is the intention that the issuing of permits and other administrative procedures should be carried out with the minimum of inconvenience consistent with the fulfilment of obligations under the legislation. We simply do not believe that this will prove to be in any way burdensome for any of those concerned. I commend the Bill to the Senate. I again thank honourable senators for their often thoughtful contributions to the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(7.12) —The first question I want to raise with Senator Evans concerns the general problem of the freedom of academic research. I am grateful that he paid attention to my queries about that in my speech during the second reading debate. In his answer he referred to a reply that he had given to the Secretary of the Council for Civil Liberties in New South Wales. That was useful and interesting because it clearly met a problem not so much of the freedom of academic research but of the freedom of speech-a very important question. My recollection was that I had received or seen a letter from the Council expressing the same concern. The Council was very worried about the effect that the Bill might have on people's ability to say whether a nuclear weapon had been exploded or could be exploded, even outside Australia. In that regard the problem was one of general freedom of speech. I am satisfied with the answer that Senator Evans gave that that concern was an unwarranted one but no doubt a reasonable one for the Council to raise. I presume, as I have not heard anything more about the matter, that he did satisfy the Council as well as me; so I put that matter aside. The point about which I was concerned and to which I referred particularly in the second reading debate is the extremely wide definition of `associated technology' in the definitions provisions. It would seem to me that unless some material had been published it would be an offence for a researcher in nuclear physics to provide any information to a colleague without a permit. Although, no doubt, the institutions that are mainly concerned with research into nuclear matters, namely, the new Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or a university with a major interest in the area, would be able to obtain from the Minister a permit for the exchange of that sort of information, I would like the Minister to indicate the Government's attitude to the granting of permits to universities. I leave aside ANSTO, which is under government direction anyway. Let us take a university where scientists may be doing pure research and may conceivably be in breach of this legislation. They may not always know about the Bill and the penalties under it. There is a potential here for a government to impede important freedoms of academic research, particularly pure research in nuclear physics. In answering another of my questions about the extent to which people have been alerted to the Bill by the Government's advertisements-which I thought was a very sensible move on the part of the Government-a number of examples were given of people who had responded and it may be that most of my concerns have already been addressed by the responses that the Government has received. The point I was making there really concerns the freedom of academic research, or academic freedom, which is a very important freedom in our society and one which I am sure the Government supports, as does the Opposition. The impact of this legislation on that freedom was a matter of concern to me, although I must admit that scientists to whom I spoke about it seemed to be familiar with this sort of problem. I would like some assurance from the Government as to what its policy will be on giving permits to people in this area. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(7.18) — Certainly, to the extent that permits are arguably necessary, there will be no hesitation whatsoever in giving them. This is a very difficult area and it is one with which the Government grappled long and hard in the drafting of the legislation. The problem is obvious. In talking about proliferation one is concerned not only with nuclear hardware, plant and machinery, or with the material from which weaponry can be produced-enriched uranium and so on. One is talking also about the information, the technology in the abstract sense, which is relevant to it. Unless we control the proliferation of that information and technology, consistent with our non-proliferation obligations, we will not have gone very far towards honouring the terms of the International Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We have somehow to direct attention to that matter. This is very much the matter which was raised with the Government in the letter from the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties and it was addressed in the reply that I have now had incorporated in Hansard. The important thing to appreciate is that it is not just information that is somehow related to nuclear technology; it is information that could be applied to the testing, design, production and use of a nuclear weapon and thus assist a country to test, design, produce or use the weapon in question. It is action oriented material rather than mere information. That is the first point and is a important consideration and follows, I think, clearly enough from the language of the definition. The second point to make is that there is an exemption from any requirement for a permit or from any application of this Act to the extent that the information in question is lawfully available either in Australia or some other country. It is not necessary that it be formally published to be lawfully available; it is enough that it be the kind of information the circulation of which is not proscribed. We have done the best we can to wrestle with this problem. It will be administered-Senator Durack asked me to assure the country and the scientific community-with sensitivity and discretion. We believe that we have gone as far as we possibly can to meeting our obligations while, at the same time, recognising the reality of the need for complete academic freedom and freedom of discourse. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(7.21) —To put a sharper point on this matter, I have now found the definition about which I was particularly concerned. It is on page 3 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 and is the clause to which Senator Evans has referred. The definition of `associated technology' means: . . . any document that contains information (other than information that is lawfully available)-- presumably it has been published- . . . (a) that is applicable primarily to the design, production, operation, testing or use of- (i) equipment or plant for- (A) the enrichment of nuclear material . . . The Government's policy is that there should not be any enrichment of nuclear material in Australia even for peaceful purposes, even to the extent required for use in a nuclear power plant. The Government's policy will be implemented by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the former Australian Atomic Energy Commission. This means that the Government policy will prevent the pursuit of studies in relation to the enrichment of uranium in Australia. However, such research studies will be going on in a university. There would be information which is not published-I do not know what is meant by lawfully available in the definition-which may be very important for the research that is going on by a particular scientist in an institution. Does the Government intend to allow that to be done? Will the Government take the same attitude to issuing permits for research into enrichment for peaceful purposes as it has taken in relation to research by ANSTO? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(7.24) — The short answer is that the Government will do nothing whatsoever to stop such research if it happens to be proceeding on an independent basis in universities. To the extent that the view is taken that the permit is necessary in terms of this legislation, there will be no question of denying a permit under the circumstances that Senator Durack described. We have a policy of not encouraging such research and we have steered the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission as it formerly was, away from it, but we are not in the business of book burning or any other sort of activity which could be construed as stopping such proper research taking place. I am not sure that any such research is taking place at the moment, but to the extent that it is, and to the extent that it would come within the definition of sensitive information, or whatever, under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act, I can give Senator Durack the assurance he is seeking. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(7.25) -What view does the Government take? Does it take the view that a permit will be necessary for somebody who is conducting such research in a university? I will cut matters short for the Minister who seems to be desperately anxious at the moment to move this matter on. Senator Sanders —You have been filibustering for hours and you have nothing to say. Senator DURACK —We have listened to the honourable senator ad nauseam and he has nothing to say. Senator Sanders —Sit down. You are not contributing anything. Senator DURACK —The honourable senator is only making the debate longer. As he has found out before, the honourable senator's interventions only prolong debates in this place and certainly encourage me to prolong them. So the honourable senator does not want any freedom of speech in this place except for the people who are listening to him. If we can just forget Senator Sanders for the moment; the second question I was addressing to the Minister concerned the responses to the advertisements of the Government to which he referred. Has this question been raised by any academic institution in Australia, or by people conducting research into the question of enrichment of uranium for peaceful purposes? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(7.26) —It is difficult to deal with the application of a statutory definition to some abstract practical situation. Senator Durack —It is not a very theoretical situation, is it? There must be plenty of people doing research into enrichment around the world and Australians may be sensible enough to do so. Senator GARETH EVANS —If the view is taken, on a proper analysis of the application of the section, that not merely the communication but the continued possession of certain information in this area is such as to come within the definition of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act and to require a permit accordingly, a government will have no hesitation in granting such a permit. I am giving the honourable senator the most affirmative possible answer I can to his question. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(7.27) -That will not be a great help to an individual scientist who is not part of a big government institution, such as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation or the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, but who is a pure researcher in nuclear science in some Australian university who may or may not have heard of this legislation. The question will arise whether he will be given some indication as to whether he will have to apply for a permit. It is all very well for the Minister to say that if he applies he will be given one in accordance with the benign attitude of this Government which does not believe in book burning. I do not believe that that will be of great encouragement to scientists in view of the Government's policies in relation to the development of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia. This researcher will not even know whether he has to apply for a permit. The answer that Senator Evans has given certainly does not indicate to him whether or not he has to apply. I would have thought that at least the Minister would have had a view on such a simple, practical issue. It is not theoretical; it is a very possible situation. Pure research into the methods of enriching uranium for peaceful purposes could be conducted by some nuclear physicist in an Australian university. There have been great developments in enrichment technology around the world. There has been the development of a centrifuge process which the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia had decided-- Senator Sanders —There he is, talking the clock out. Senator DURACK —We have wasted this amount of time only because of the honourable senator's ridiculous and offensive interjections. Senator Sanders —You supporters of nuclear power are all the same. You have nothing to say. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Sanders should cease interjecting. Senator Durack has the floor. Senator DURACK —Thank you, Mr Chairman. As I have said, as far as the Opposition is concerned, these people would certainly be encouraged to pursue enrichment research for peaceful purposes. Of course, there are new technologies, much more sophisticated technologies, for enrichment that have been developed since the centrifuge process. Very respected scientists throughout the world are engaged in it. As I have said, hopefully they would be engaged in it in Australia. If they are not, hopefully that situation will change. I simply want the Government to tell me, and hopefully those who might be interested in the answer, whether or not a person in such a position should apply for a permit for the work he is doing. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(7.29) — The proposed legislation has been widely publicised. It will be publicised further. The Australian Safeguards Office has written to every university in Australia about the terms of this legislation. The material has been circulated to physics departments in every such university. No department has yet responded saying that it does anything of a kind that would conceivably attract the operation of the legislation. We will, nonetheless, try hard to find someone who might conceivably be affected. If it appears that they might be, we will be very happy to give them a permit. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being after 7.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. In doing so, I inform the Senate that Mr Robert Thomas Martin retired from the position of Assistant Principal Parliamentary Reporter on 5 January last. Mr Martin began his reporting career in South Australia in 1943. He served with the Australian Imperial Force and worked as a court reporter based in Adelaide and Melbourne before being appointed to the Commonwealth Hansard staff as a reporter in August 1962. His career at Hansard took him through all the reporting, editorial and administrative positions, culminating in his appointment as Assistant Principal Parliamentary Reporter in January 1985. Mr Martin won respect and appreciation from all senators and members, and on their behalf I thank him for his service to the Parliament and wish him and his wife well in his retirement. Mr B. A. Harris has been appointed to succeed him as Assistant Principal Parliamentary Reporter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.32 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Correspondence and Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of the following annual reports- Barley Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86. Dairy Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86. Wheat Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86. Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 20. Copyright Act-Declaration by the Attorney-General under paragraph 10a (1) (b), dated 28 October 1986. Defence Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 19. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1986 No. 13-Export Meat Orders as amended (Amendment). Family Law Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 15. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of a Ministerial Determination authorised under section 106aa, dated 23 December 1986. Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 17. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 18. Public Service Act-Determination 1987 No. 5. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinance 1987 No. 3-Crimes (Amendment). Social Security Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 16. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 619) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 October 1985: (1) Is the North West Cape defence facility currently being used to communicate with United States (US) missile-firing submarines; if so, is this because the new Trident submarines are on patrol close to the Western seaboard of the continent; if not, will the facility be used to communicate with the submarines. (2) Is the North West Cape still being used to communicate with hunter-killer submarines. (3) Is the Minister for Defence concerned that one of the major missions of hunter-killer submarines is to target and destroy Soviet missile-firing submarines. (4) Do such missions, together with other war-fighting missions, threaten the doctrine of deterrence based on mutual-assured destruction which the Government endorses. (5) Is the Government concerned about the destabilising impact of the deployment of nuclear-armed ``Tomahawk'' cruise missiles on hunter-killer submarines, and other combatants, given that: (a) no current or planned arms control negotiations cover such systems (b) there are possibly insuperable problems of verification associated with such systems; and (c) they give attack submarines a `strategic nuclear capability they currently lack. (6) What is the operational range of North West Cape's VLF communication capability. (7) Should the VLF antenna trailed by a submarine beneath the surface be at right angles to incoming signal for maximum effect. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) In general, the North West Cape Station is available to relay communications to any USN or RAN ships and submarines within its area of reliable coverage. Any USN or RAN vessels within that area are likely to make use of the Station's communications relay capabilities. VLF communications remain the primary means of communicating with submerged submarines. But since North West Cape Station was established a number of developments have altered its status in the USN's submarine communications system: (a) The US VLF system has been enhanced and back-up systems have been developed to supplement it, including the TAXAMO airborne VLF relay system, and the Low Frequency system. (b) The US has developed a limited capability to communicate with submerged submarines, on an Extra Low Frequency system, from stations in the US. (c) Satellite and HF systems can also be used to relay communications to submarines, but not while they are fully submerged. These developments mean that increasingly no single element of the US submarine communications system is irreplaceable-and that includes North West Cape. Nonetheless each element in the system plays a vital role, because each element contributes materially to the confidence that the US has in its ability to communicate with its submarines in a crisis. That confidence is itself vital in maintaining crisis stability and strengthening mutual deterrence. Because the new OHIO Class Submarines equipped with Trident missiles will all be based in the continental US-unlike the Polaris SSBNs, some of which were based in Guam-the OHIOs may all focus their patrol operations closer to the continental US than did the Polaris submarines. Nonetheless the importance of maintaining the security of the SSBN force means that OHIO submarines may also be deployed to the areas reliably covered by the Station at North West Cape. Whenever OHIO submarines were deployed to those areas, the Station would in all probability relay communications for them. The availability of the facilities at North West Cape thus contributes to the security of US SSBN forces, which in turn contributes to maintaining deterrence. (3) and (4) While it is almost certainly the case that, in the event of war between the US and the USSR, one of the missions of US ``hunter-killer'' submarines would be to attack Soviet submarines (just as Soviet ``hunter-killer'' submarines would similarly seek to destroy US submarines) the Australian Government's concern is to ensure that war between the US and USSR does not occur at all. Mutual deterrence rests on the possession by both sides of nuclear forces which would be secure from destruction in a `disarming' first strike-and particularly on their ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs)-but it is not credible that either side's ``hunter-killer'' submarines would be, as part of a first strike, able to destroy the other side's SSBN force before many of those SSBNS had been able to launch their missiles. Another of the major missions of ``hunter-killer'' submarines in time of conflict would be to protect friendly SSBNs from the other side's attack submarines, and this would significantly complicate the already formidable problems involved in locating SSBNs on patrol in broad ocean areas. (5) Deployment of the Tomahawk cruise missile raises complex issues and the question of how destabilising it is is a moot point. I draw to the honourable senator's attention that the US has outlined two roles for the nuclear armed Tomahawk. Both take advantage of the greater dispersal of USN nuclear capability provided by the eventual deployment of Tomahawk on 190 USN vessels. The first stated role is as an assured survivable reserve. It would be able substantially to survive a Soviet `first strike' and so ensure that US forces could not be disarmed by such a strike. The second stated role is to match the long range naval cruise missiles already deployed by the USSR. As such it allows the US to balance the Soviet capacity for theatre nuclear war and nuclear war at sea. It also allows the US to demonstrate that any Soviet nuclear strike against the USN could be met with retaliation in kind; retaliation which would not necessarily involve escalation and the use of US strategic nuclear forces. This ensures that the USSR should not envisage any advantage to itself in initiating a nuclear war at sea. It is important to bear in mind that about 80% of the almost 4000 Tomahawk missiles planned to be deployed by the mid 1990's will have conventional and not nuclear warheads. These conventional Tomahawks provide an ability against ships and a variety of land targets, and are intended to allow the US Navy to better disperse its conventional military capabilities. This dispersal will render USN conventional capabilities less vulnerable to any preemptive attack. If tension should arise between the US and the USSR, the USSR would be less able, and thus less tempted, to attempt a preemptive attack. The dispersed and thus survivable conventional Tomahawks would also allow the USN to continue to fight with conventional weapons even if its aircraft carriers had been put out of action. These considerations deter the outbreak of war. They also raise the threshold against the use of nuclear weapons, if conflict did occur, by increasing USN conventional military options. While all types of long range cruise missiles present particular problems of verification, rules to account for their deployment have already been proposed in the current US/USSR strategic arms control talks. The Australian Government does not accept that any problem in arms control matters is ``insuperable''. (6) The two frequencies used by North West Cape for its VLF transmissions are registered with the International Frequency Registration Board as having a nominal range of 5000 km. The actual range, and quality of underwater reception of VLF communications, is influenced by a number of variables including atmospheric conditions and salinity levels in addition to the position of the receiving antennae on the submarine. (7) For submarines which trail a VLF antenna, the best reception is obtained when the antenna is pointing at or straight away from the source of the signal-not at right angles to it. (Question No. 793) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) What items have been purchased, leased, or otherwise for the: (a) office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and his immediate personal staff; and (b) for other offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions. (2) What is the value of each of these items and how were such items procured, and on what conditions. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The following items have been acquired for the office of the Director, his personal Secretary, and reception area after advice from an interior design officer from the Department of Housing and Construction. Purchase of Items 1-7 and 27-31 was by common use purchasing procedures through the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. Items 8-21 and 32-37 were purchased in accordance with usual government local purchasing procedures for items under the public tender threshold. Items 22 and 38 were leased from Artbank under standard Artbank conditions. Items 23-26 were supplied by the Director for his own use. 1. (a) Director's Office Item Value $ 1. 1 x built-in wall unit consisting of refrigerator; book shelves; coat cupboard; drawers... 2,933.15 2. 1 x filing cabinet... 410.00 3. 1 x executive chair... 623.00 4. 2 x visitors' chair... 862.00 5. 1 x 3-seater lounge suite with 2 chairs... 4,138.00 6. 4 side tables... 1,468.00 7. 1 coffee table... 213.00 8. 1 safe... 800.00 9. 1 woven Afghanistani floor rug... 1,115.00 10. 1 desk lamp... 335.00 11. 1 plant container... 75.00 12. 1 x fan... 50.00 13. 2 x pot plants... 15.00 monthly 14. Australian Law Journal & Reports... 2,822.40 15. Australian Legal Monthly Digest... 210.00 16. Australian Law Reports... 3,042.00 17. Commonwealth Law Reports... 5,571.00 18. Watson & Bartley, Criminal Law in NSW Vol. 2... 240.00 19. Watson & Purnell, Criminal Law in NSW Vol. 1... 176.00 20. Watson & Watson, Australian Criminal Law. Federal Offences Vols 1-3... 330.00 21. Various legal text books, legal subscription services and dictionaries... 1,395.19 22. 2 x paintings... 60.00 p.a. 23. 2 x desks 24. 4 x paintings 25. 6 x ornaments 26. 1 x occasional chair Personal Secretary's Office and Reception Area 27. 1 x desk and return... 379.00 28. 3 x filing cabinets... 208.80 29. 2 x lounge chairs... 872.00 30. 1 x bookcase... 237.70 31. 1 x credenza... 141.27 32. planter tub... 46.35 33. radio... 105.00 34. fan... 50.00 35. typist chair... 135.00 36. 2 x B-class containers... 2,920.00 37. plant hire... 10.00 monthly 38. 2 x paintings... 60.00 p.a. 1. (b) Other Offices No other offices are provided solely for use of the Director. An office is provided in each of Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and Sydney for visiting senior personnel. No visiting office is provided in the Canberra Office.