Wednesday, 21 October 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 President and senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from five citizens). To the President and senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 250 citizens). To the President and senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 88 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 94 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 Australia Card (2) That this national identity system will be intrusive, will not appreciably combat tax or social security fraud, is authoritarian and alien to the Australian way of life Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in parliament assembled, should: Urge the Government to institute a National Referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 128 citizens). To the President and senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 233 citizens). To the President and senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 1,903 citizens). To the President and senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 38 citizens). To the President and senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Puplick (from 211 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 498 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 257 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact for all Australians. 2. The following Citizens of Australia express their concerns at the potential violation of civil rights and democratic freedom posed by such a national identification system and urge that the Government not proceed with the planned introduction of the Australia Card. 3. Or that a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill be held before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 60 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 Australia Card. (2) That this national identity system will be intrusive, will not appreciably combat tax or social security fraud, is authoritarian and alien to the Australian way of life. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to institute a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 215 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 Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating 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 and a significant infringement of civil liberties. (4) That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and other departments to control and reduce tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 71 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australian Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: 1. We reject in principle the need for a national I.D. card on the basis that it will be a gross violation of individual liberty. 2. We reject the notion that the government can claim a mandate for the proposed legislation and state categorically it does not reflect our will. 3. We believe that, as with the proposed Bill of Rights legislation, the government's methods and arguments in promoting this legislation have been under-handed and undemocratic. 4. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and that its implementation will result in further attacks on individual freedom and responsibility, the family and the Church and that the real intent is the promotion of a powerful secular humanist ``big brother'' government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should together with the House of Representatives take action to reject this proposed legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 504 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 proposed Australia Card legislation on the following grounds: 1. We believe that it represents potentially undesirable 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 310 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That we believe there to be cheaper, more efficient means of combating social security and taxation fraud than those contained in the Australia Card Bill. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Consider these alternatives and reject any legislation which seeks to implement the intrusive and expensive Australia Card proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chapman (from 155 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australian Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Coulter (from 226 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable or responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System as your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coulter (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully requests that the Australia Card Legislation be rejected because the proposed system: (1) has been demonstrated to have no capacity to stop tax evasion, Social Security fraud, illegal immigration or to recoup the revenue lost through abuse of these systems as was claimed. (2) will impose a large financial impact on Australian citizens, and has been demonstrated by the Parliament's own Joint Committee to be not cost effective. (3) has been shown to have the capacity to actually aid and abet both illegal immigration and organised crime. (4) is designed to cause a great intrusion and disruption to the normal day to day activities of all citizens. (5) does not contain the very necessary barriers to invasion of privacy, and loss of personal liberties. (6) will in both the words of the Government and the HIC be enlarged to encompass far greater uses, and the compilation of much more information on the data base. And your petitioners humbly pray that in the light of the obvious and proven inability of the proposed Australia Card to achieve its stated objectives that the Government explain the reason why it is persisting in reintroducing this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Foreman (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Foreman (from 200 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card would have a deleterious impact on all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request that the Australia Card Bill not be passed. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 138 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Haines (from 225 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 national ID Card and numbering system threatens the privacy of law-abiding Australians opening the door to computer matching of personal information, will cause inconvenience to rural people in particular, and will result in massive compliance costs for private business. That the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee Report of 1986 showed that the Australia Card will not be effective in combating taxation and social security fraud and illegal immigration, as its cost savings are based on faulty estimates. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 165 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Jones (from 225 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australian respectfully showeth: That the proposed national ID Card and numbering system threatens the privacy of law-abiding Australians opening the door to computer matching of personal information, will cause inconvenience to rural people in particular, and will result in massive compliance costs for private business. That the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee Report of 1986 showed that the Australia Card will not be effective in combating taxation and social security fraud and illegal immigration, as its cost savings are based on faulty estimates. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 1,449 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully requests that the Australia Card Legislation be rejected because the proposed system: (1) has been demonstrated to have no capacity to stop tax evasion, Social Security fraud, illegal immigration or to recoup the revenue lost through abuse of these systems as was claimed. (2) will impose a large financial impact on Australian citizens, and has been demonstrated by the Parliament's own Joint Committee to be not cost effective. (3) has been shown to have the capacity to actually aid and abet both illegal immigration and organised crime. (4) is designed to cause a great intrusion and disruption to the normal day to day activities of all citizens. (5) does not contain the very necessary barriers to invasion of privacy, and loss of personal liberties. (6) will in both the words of the Government and the HIC be enlarged to encompass far greater uses, and the compilation of much more information on the data base. And your petitioners humbly pray that in the light of the obvious and proven inability of the proposed Australia Card to achieve its stated objectives that the Government explain the reason why it is persisting in reintroducing this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 17 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card would have a deleterious impact on all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request that the Australia Card Bill not be passed. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 138 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 Hawke Labor Government's Australia Card proposal is the most far-reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever and on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: reject the Labor Government's Australia 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 Macklin (from 854 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Reid (from 130 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. We reject in principle the need for a national I.D. card on the basis that it will be a gross violation of individual liberty. 2. We reject the notion that the government can claim a mandate for the proposed legislation and state categorically it does not reflect our will. 3. We believe that, as with the proposed Bill of Rights legislation, the government's methods and arguments in promoting this legislation have been under-hand and undemocratic. 4. We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and that its implementation will result in further attacks on individual freedom and responsibility, the family and the Church and that the real intent is the promotion of a powerful secular humanist ``big brother'' government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should together with the House of Representatives take action to reject this proposed legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 480 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled the Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we believe there to be cheaper, more efficient means of combating social security and taxation fraud than those contained in the Australia Card Bill. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Consider these alternatives and reject any legislation which seeks to implement the intrusive and expensive Australia Card proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from two 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: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposed introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive and authoritarian, and alien to the Australian way of life. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's resorting to such a far-reaching and expensive measure to deal with the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud. We call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and appropriate departments to tackle these issues. Your petitioners urge those members present to reject the Identification Card proposal: And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever humbly pray. by Senator Walters (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth opposition to the introduction of any form of national identification system especially a system known as Australia Card. Your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled should oppose any Legislation designed to impose such a system on the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 485 citizens). To The President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card would have a deleterious impact on all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request that the Australia Card Bill not be passed. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 138 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 171 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 16 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 Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive and costly for taxpayers and business. (3) That this form of national and compulsory identification will not be effective in combating the problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security fraud. (4) 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. (5) That we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and other Departments to curtail tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 2,109 citizens). The humble petition from certain citizens of Western Australia respectfully showeth: That In view of the number of expert witnesses and Government departments that have cast doubts on the cost, inadequate safeguards and purported benefits of the Health Department's claims for the proposed Australia Card and In view of the demonstrated inability of the bureaucracy in general, and the Health Department in particular, to protect the privacy of information entrusted to them and In view of the gross infringement of an individual's civil liberty that would be created by the proposed Card: Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will: Neither pass nor reject nor fail to pass the Australia Card Bill but rather refer the Bill to an open Senate inquiry that is held in public and that after all the facts have been considered a national referendum be held on the Australia Card Bill And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 172 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition from certain citizens of Western Australia respectfully showeth: That In view of the number of expert witnesses and Government departments that have cast doubts on the cost, inadequate safeguards and purported benefits of the Health Department's claims for the proposed Australia Card and In view of the demonstrated inability of the bureaucracy in general, and the Health Department in particular, to protect the privacy of information entrusted to them and In view of the gross infringement of an individual's civil liberty that would be created by the proposed Card: Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will: Neither pass nor reject nor fail to pass the Australia Card Bill but rather refer the Bill to an open Senate enquiry that is held in public and that after all the facts have been considered a national referendum be held on the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 220 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: Moreton Island is an invaluable natural resource for Queensland and the world and that mining on Moreton would gravely compromise its unique flora and fauna and its outstanding recreational archaeological and scientific values. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the government to use its proven constitutional powers to halt sand mining on Moreton by supporting the Moreton Island Preservation Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 220 citizens). We, the undersigned, call on the Federal Government to give the required 12 months notice (on or after October 19, 1988 to the United States Government to terminate the lease of the US base at Pine Gap. We believe that in the interests of world peace and the Australian people, this lease should be terminated and the base closed. Pine Gap is a nuclear target-it is a danger to Australia's security; Pine Gap is a ground control station for US Signals Intelligence; Pine Gap is virtually a US colony in the middle of Australia; Pine Gap spies on Australian and overseas telephone and telex communications-last year Pine Gap was caught spying on Greece; Pine Gap is heavily staffed by the US Central Intelligence Agency because it is the single most important US facility in Australia and one of the most important US satellite ground stations in the world; Pine Gap is situated on Aboriginal land, specifically a sacred dreaming tract; Pine Gap is an obstacle to the achievement of a nuclear-free and independent Pacific; Pine Gap helps the US select nuclear targets in the Soviet Union and other countries and as such involves Australia in US nuclear war plans. by Senators Jenkins (from 2,551 citizens) and Vallentine (from 1,587 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in parliament assembled, should: 1. Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia and 2. Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium 137 and caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 40 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 a satellite communication dish, that sends to the United States the information, gathered by the ``joint high frequency stations'' in Australia and New Zealand, indicating the position of the Soviet naval ships and submarines. This information from Watsonia is combined with data from satellites and underwater sensors to calculate the location of the Soviet vessels with great accuracy. 2. This would make it possible for the US nuclear naval ships and submarines to destroy all nuclear Soviet naval ships and submarines, while the US nuclear submarines, naval ships and bombers launch their missiles in a ``first strike'' attack. 3. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 4. The ``joint U.S.-Australian'' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the ``Joint Australian-U.S.'' Electronic Communication Facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers, about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should 1. Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia. 2. Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium-137 and caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products. 3. Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, x-ray etc.) 4. Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 Oct. 86 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 Oct. 86 to 1 July 87 so that pensions are restored to the 9 Oct 86 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from five citizens). To the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia. On June 9th the Greenpeace Yacht Vega was involved in a peaceful protest against the nuclear armed frigate U.S.S. Ramsey because of the threat that her presence posed to the people of Australia. That criminal charges against her crew be dropped. by Senator Vallentine (from 372 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We consider the Federal Government's decision to have Telecom charge for the cost of ``Directory Assistance'' inquiries will greatly disadvantage the sick, elderly and the handicapped. Specifically, it will impose an unjustified financial burden on those with sight impediments and reading difficulties, such as the elderly. It will also disadvantage physically handicapped people and persons confined due to illness. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should urge the Government to: Reverse its decision to have Telecom charge for `Directory Assistance' inquiries. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the A.C.T. respectfully shows- That X-rated videos denigrate true human values and lower community standards. That the continued availability of this pornography is contrary to the wishes of the majority of Canberra people. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to take action to bring about the prohibition of X-rated videos in the A.C.T. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 120 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, (i) are greatly disturbed by the dangers to health posed by passive smoking, and evidence of which is being documented daily by medical authorities around the world; (ii) note that environmental tobacco smoke has been identified as the major pollutant in aeroplane cabins, and that its direct threat to health is recognised in the special leave provisions for flight attendants specifically on grounds of upper respiratory infections; (iii) appreciate the government's undertaking to legislate for smoke-free travel on aeroplanes, but are dismayed at the apparent reluctance to follow up the Minister for Aviation's December announcement with action; and (iv) call upon the government to make smoke-free aeroplane travel a reality without further delay, and to ensure that smoke-free areas which cannot be contaminated by recycled pollutants, are available at all aerodromes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Gareth Evans (from 10 citizens), McKiernan (from 230 citizens) and Reid (from 502 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Burns (from 175 citizens), Harradine (from 87 citizens) and Macklin (from 152 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed submission of areas of North Queensland for world heritage listing is not in the best interests of the people and should be rejected. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 95 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition to the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Hawke Labor Government's high tax policies and the introduction of any new taxes including a wealth tax on the net wealth of individual Australians and Australian business is totally condemned and opposed. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Not introduce an investment destroying wealth tax into the Senate. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 14 citizens). Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —by leave-I present ballot forms from a poll relating to the introduction of an identity card from 4,755 citizens of Tamworth, 324 in favour and 4,431 against. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave -I present to the Senate the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders and is not in the correct form, from 154 citizens praying that the Australia Card Bill be rejected: We, the undersigned, would like to voice our protest at the proposed legislation for the Australia Card. This petition of Australian citizens shows: 1. We reject in principle the need for a national I.D. card on the basis that it will be a gross violation of civil liberties and personal freedoms. 2. We support proper measures by government to stamp out tax avoidance. We equally believe that the introduction of a national system of identification and sensitive data storage is a massive intrusion into the privacy of those least likely to be involved in tax avoidance practices and equally less likely to be effective against those who are. 3. We reject the notion that the government, on the basis of its recent re-election, can claim a mandate for the proposed legislation. The Australia Card was not a debated pre-election policy issue and we categorically state that it does not reflect our will. We therefore request that you vote to reject this legislation. Yours humbly. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, from 222 citizens praying that the sale of irradiated food in Australia be banned: Tests have so far shown that vitamins A, B, C, E & K are deleted by irradiation. There have been many animal-feeding tests done over the past thirty years and some, admittedly, show no ill effects. BUT the U.S. Food and Drug Administration made an internal review of the test data and found that only FIVE of the 413 animal-feeding studies appeared to support claims that the process was safe. The British Medical Association has completed tests that show that irradiation may have a genetic effect on children, and say they will have nothing to do with irradiation. Let us not take chances with our health . . . Say no to Irradiation. Petitions received. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the National Crime Authority Act 1984. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —On behalf of Senator Harradine and on my own behalf, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that- (i) on 1 August 1975 the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe was signed at Helsinki, Finland, by 33 European States, together with Canada and the United States; (ii) the signatories committed themselves under Principle VII to ``respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion''; (iii) the signing of the Final Act raised the expectations of the peoples of the Soviet Union for greater observance by the Soviet Union of human rights, gave rise to the formation of the Moscow, Lithuanian, Georgian, Armenian and Ukrainian citizens' monitoring groups to inform the peoples of the Soviet Union and the world about the Soviet Government's compliance with the Final Act; (iv) 9 November 1987 marks the 11th Anniversary of the establishment of the largest such citizens' group, the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords; (v) 3 members of the Ukrainian Group, Oleksiy Tykhy, Yuriy Lytvyn and Vasyl Stus died after years of inhuman treatment in Soviet labour camps while a fourth, Mykhaylo Melnyk, committed suicide as a result of continuous KGB persecution; (vi) 8 members of the Ukrainian Group are still imprisoned, 2 are in internal exile in remote parts of the Soviet Union, while 17 have been released from prison and exile and are living in the Ukraine and 8 have been forced to emigrate to the West after serving prison terms; (vii) no member of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group has been released from prison in the recent amnesty which was intended to serve as a demonstration that a new policy of ``Glasnost'' has been introduced into the USSR; and (viii) the notorious ``special regime'' Perm Camp 36-1, known as the ``death camp'' at which 3 Ukrainian Monitors died, is still in full operation and houses 18 inmates: 11 Ukrainians, 1 Latvian, 2 Lithuanians, 2 Estonians, 1 Armenian and 2 Russians; (b) acknowledges the concern felt by members of the Australian community over the continued harassment of the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords; (c) seeks assurances from the Government of the Soviet Union that members of the Ukrainian and other public Helsinki Monitoring Groups be released from their incarceration and allowed to emigrate to the countries of their choice; (d) seeks to convey to the Government of the Soviet Union its belief that such humanitarian acts and the demonstration that its citizens have freedom of expression will serve to reduce tensions between East and West, and help to erase doubts about the much heralded policy of ``Glasnost'', and about Soviet commitments to their international obligations; (e) calls upon the Soviet Union to allow Ukrainian Helsinki Monitors, Yuriy Shukhevych and Oksana Meshko, together with their families, to emigrate to Australia, where they have family members willing to sponsor them, as an immediate demonstration of its good will; and (f) requests the President of the Senate to bring this resolution to the attention of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that, since 15 May 1986, the Federal Government has paid $4m in rent on 10 floors of empty office space at 80 William Street, Sydney, into which the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was supposed to have moved early this year; (b) further notes that at a recent hearing of Senate Estimates Committee A an officer of the Department of Industrial Relations said he could not say when the Commission would be able to occupy this empty space, as a number of minor works were still continuing under the control of the departments of Administrative Services and Housing and Construction; and (c) calls on the Government to institute a thorough inquiry into the scandalous waste of money that is involved, not only in 18 months rent on empty office space, but also into the circumstances surrounding the unnecessary and wasteful decision to move the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's Sydney activities from a rent free, government-owned, centrally located building in Sydney to the very costly and inconvenient space, costing $220,000 a month, in Westfield Corporation's development at 80 William Street, Woolloomooloo, and to report to the Parliament on the outcome of the inquiry. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the Australian Anti-bases Campaign Coalition and the Alice Springs peace group for the well organised week of action at Pine Gap; (b) commends the peaceful nature of the protest and the non-violent spirit in which it was carried out; (c) notes the call for Australia to acknowledge the supremacy of international law over national law and that the Nuremberg Principles call for ordinary citizens to resist preparations for genocide; (d) deplores the Federal Government's refusal to tell the Australian people what really goes on at Pine Gap, Nurrungar and North West Cape besides their monitoring and verification role; and (e) calls on the Government to give one year's notice of termination of the Pine Gap agreement. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —At the request of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Senator Collins, I give notice that, 13 sitting days after today, he will move: 1. That the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations (Amendments), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 97, 115 and 176 and made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. 2. That an Order dated 29 May 1987, made under section 6 of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, be disallowed. 3. That the Australian Citizenship Regulations (Amendments), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 87 and 88 and made under the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, be disallowed. 4. That the Public Service Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 90 and made under the Public Service Act 1922, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator STONE —This is a protective notice of motion given today, this being the last day on which it can be given, while the Committee awaits replies to its correspondence with Ministers relating to the regulations in question. This notice will protect the Committee's freedom of action during that period, while giving Ministers an adequate opportunity to write to the Committee. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the Committee's concerns in respect of these regulations. Leave granted. The document read as follows- SCHEDULE OF MATTERS TO WHICH SENATOR COLLINS'S NOTICES OF MOTIONS RELATE 1. Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations (Amendments) 2. as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 Nos. 97, 115 and 176 3. made under the Customs Act 1901 The Committee has sought advice from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator the Hon. John Button) about, inter alia, appeal rights, the status of authorised persons who possess certain powers and the need for parliamentary supervision of the list of prohibited exports. 4. An Order dated 29 May 1987, made under section 6 of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposal) Act 1974 The Committee has sought from the Hon. John Brown, M.P., Minister for Arts, Sport, Environment, Tourism and Territories (hereafter DASETT) advice about, inter alia, unreviewable discretions, the provision of reasons for decisions and the need for parliamentary supervision of certain ministerial instruments. 5. Australian Citizenship Regulations (Amendments) 6. as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 87 and 88 made under the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 The Committee has asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the Hon. Mick Young, M.P., for advice, inter alia, on public access to a certain register and the reviewability of certain discretionary decisions. 7. Public Service Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 90 made under the Public Service Act 1922 The Committee has asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service matters for advice on the minimum notice to be given before a transfer is effective and the possible use of wide personal discretions by a Secretary to prevent an appeal. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled 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. United Nations Commission on Human Rights-Forty-second Session-Geneva, 3 February-14 March 1986-Report of the Australian Delegation. 2. United Nations General Assembly-Forty-first Session-New York, 16 September-19 December 1986-Report of the Australian Delegation. 3. Insurance Commissioner-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to 125 of the Insurance Act 1973. 4. Selected Statistics on the General Insurance Industry for the Year Ended 31 December 1986-Bulletin of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner. 5. Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to Section 19 of the Governor-General Act 1974. 6. Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and K.K.F.C. Proprietary Limited-10 August 1987-Concerning access to the Australian Fishing Zone by vessels from Taiwan-Pursuant to Section 9b of the Fisheries Act 1952. 7. The Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund-Annual Report 1986-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to Section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947 and Section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. 8. Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund-Annual Report 1986-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947 and Section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. 9. Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund-Annual Report 1986-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to Section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947 and Section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. 10. Improving Australia's Competitiveness Through Industrial Research and Development-Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) Report-Pursuant to Section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 11. Administrative Review Council-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to Section 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. 12. Judge Advocate General-Annual Report 1986-Pursuant to Section 186a of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. 13. The Australian National University-1986 Annual Report and Financial Statements-Part 2-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to Section 33 of the Australian National University Act 1946. 14. Windows Onto Worlds-Committee to Review Australian Studies in Tertiary Education Report. 15. Australian Postal Commission-Annual Report 1986-87-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to Section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975. 16. Curriculum Development Council-Annual Report 1986-Pursuant to Section 14p of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Amendment Act 1984. 17. Commonwealth Schools Commission-Annual Report 1986-Pursuant to Section 17a of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973. 18. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-Annual Report 1986-Pursuant to Section 43a of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977. 19. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Report detailing determinations made by the Minister for Education and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in 1986 in respect of the 1985-87 triennium-Pursuant to Section 55 of the Act. 20. Council of the Australian Maritime College-Annual Report 1986-Pursuant to Section 39 of the Maritime College Act 1978. 21. Recommendations of the Local Government Grants Commission of each State and the Northern Territory for the distribution of the Commonwealth's general purpose financial assistance grants to local governing bodies in 1987-88-Together with a report of the Tasmanian State Grants Commission-Relating to grants for payment in the 1987-88 financial year-Pursuant to Section 13 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986. 22. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of expenditure-September 1987. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, the Order of Business on Thursday, 22 October 1987, be as follows: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Ministerial Statements, by leave (4) Discovery of Formal Business (5) Placing of Business (6) Questions (7) Adjournment. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I refer to General Business notice of motion No. 26 standing in my name, which it is hoped will be dealt with formally tomorrow. I seek the leave of the Senate for notice of motion No. 26 to be dealt with on the next day of sitting and listed on the Notice Paper accordingly. Leave granted. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —Mr President, I ask that General Business notice of motion No. 27 standing in my name be taken as formal business. Senator Gareth Evans —On the understanding that special pleas by the Government for later introduction will be considered on a case by case basis, I do not object. Senator MACKLIN —I move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, where a Bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the House of Representatives, after 26 November 1987, and a motion is moved for the second reading of the Bill, debate on that motion shall be taken to be adjourned upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate shall be made an Order of the Day for the first day of sitting in 1988, without any Question being put. (2) That immediately after debate on a motion for the second reading of a Bill is adjourned in accordance with paragraph (1), or following the giving of notices on a subsequent day, a motion may be moved without notice to refer that Bill to a standing committee for inquiry and report by a day not later than the first day of sitting in 1988. (3) That this Order cease to have effect at the commencement of the first day of sitting in 1988. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —Mr President, I ask that General Business notice of motion No. 28 standing in my name by taken as formal business. Senator Gareth Evans —Without any enthusiasm whatever, but with a healthy sense of realism, I equally indicate that the Government has no objection. Senator MESSNER —I move: That the Senate: (a) notes with alarm the very critical personnel problem within the Australian Defence Force which has involved the resignation of approximately 32,000 Defence Force personnel or 46 per cent of the current staffing level of the entire Australian Defence Force over the past four years; (b) condemns the Government for its failure to appreciate and address the personnel wastage problem within the Australian Defence Force; (c) views with concern the deleterious effects of the high wastage rate, including a general decline in morale, a general dilution of experience levels, unnecessary diversion of resources into training, an accelerated increase in the cost of training, an over-rapid promotion of inexperienced personnel and an increased posting turbulence; and (d) refers the following matters to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade for inquiry and report: (i) the extent and magnitude of the Australian Defence Force wastage problem; (ii) the effects of the present level of wastage on the capability of the Australian Defence Force to fulfil its role in an effective manner; and (iii) measures to reduce wastage, and an assessment of the relative effectiveness of these proposed measures. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.16) —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 appropriate amounts required for expenditure in 1987-88 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the Government. The expenditure program of the Government to which the provisions contained in this Bill relate was outlined in the Treasurer's Budget Speech. The amounts sought in this Bill for each department are detailed in Schedule 3 and total $20,348,571,000; of this total, the Bill seeks authority for the issue of $11,701,170,900, the balance of $8,647,400,100 having already been authorised by the Supply Act (No. 1) 1987-88. An amount of $170,000,000 is also included in the Bill for the Advance to the Minister for Finance, $10,000,000 more than was provided in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1987-88 which this Bill, when enacted, will subsume. The increase reflects the experience of recent years whereby peak calls have been progressively pressing closer to the limit of the advance, albeit pending additional estimates or at year end. I add also that this is the first increase in the level of the advance since 1983-84. Clause 6 of the Bill provides for the appropriation of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to enable the Minister for Finance to issue amounts for the payment of increases in salaries and payments in the nature of salary arising out of awards, orders or determinations made under, or in accordance with, a law. Allowance has been included in the overall Budget figuring for such prospective increases-$25m in respect of persons employed under the defence function and $150m in respect of other Public Service employees; that allowance is not, however, appropriated in advance of any increases being awarded. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(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- This Bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1987-88, totalling $5,403,980,000. Of this amount, $2,397,522,000 was authorised by the Supply Act (No. 2) 1986-87, the balance of $3,006,458,000 will be authorised by this Bill. The Bill provides for proposed expenditure on the construction of public works and buildings, the acquisition of sites and buildings, certain advances and loans, items of plant and equipment which are clearly definable as capital expenditure and expenditure on new policy initiatives for which legislation has not been approved previously. Provision is also made for grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory. An amount of $140m is included under the Advance to the Minister for Finance, $10m more than was provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1987-88 which this Bill, when enacted, will subsume. The need for the increase reflects the experience of recent years whereby peak calls have been progressively pressing closer to the limit of the advance, albeit pending additional estimates or at year end. Again, this is the first increase in the level of the advance since 1983-84. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in schedule 4 to the Bill and the main features were outlined in the Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.18) —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 appropriate moneys of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the recurrent and capital expenditures of the parliamentary departments for the year ending 30 June 1988. The total amount sought is $71,859,000. Of this amount, $23,716,000 was authorised by the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1987-88, the balance of $48,143,000 being sought in this Bill. Details of the proposed expenditures are set out in schedule 2 to the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.20) —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 amend the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985 to give effect to recent announcements made by the Government on Federal road funding in the May Statement and the 1987 Budget. In the May Statement the Government announced that 1987-88 payments under the Australian Land Transport Program (ALTP) and the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Program would be maintained at the same level as last year, $1,250 million. This level of expenditure has been confirmed in the Budget. However, the Treasurer announced in the Budget that $1 million of this amount would be used to offset ALTP administrative costs attributable to the Department of Transport and Communications. The legislation already provides for the States to recover part of their own administrative costs. To achieve $1,250 million expenditure in 1987-88, the Government has decided to run down Trust Fund balances and adjust that ALTP rate of excise. This Bill reduces from 1 July 1987 the rate of customs duty and excise on petrol and diesel earmarked to the ALTP Trust Fund by 0.723 cents per litre. It authorises the repayment from the ALTP Trust Fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the revenue generated in the period from 1 July 1987 until the legislation comes into force, by the 0.723 cents per litre adjustment after taking into account subsequent indexation adjustments and interest earned by these funds. The Bill also provides for administrative expenses incurred by the Department of Transport and Communications in administering the Australian Land Transport Program to be recovered from the ALTP Trust Fund. This will be limited to $1 million in 1987-88 and be achieved by expanding the existing research and road safety component of Trust Fund revenue from 0.618 per cent to 0.752 per cent to include administrative costs and making a compensatory reduction in the National Roads share of revenue. These amendments in no way change the Government's commitment to the development of a road network which will meet Australia's national economic objectives. This commitment is clearly demonstrated by our decision to maintain the current road funding level despite difficult economic circumstances and to extend the 2 cents per litre surcharge on fuel currently levied under the ABRD program for five years from 1 January 1989. The Government's economic agenda clearly focuses on establishing the basis for Australia's long term economic security. An efficient national transport and communications infrastructure is needed to assist in achieving this objective. The Government has clearly indicated that it will give high priority to improving this sector. Let me now turn to the details of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 contain the usual citation and commencement provisions. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill provide for the rate of excise payable to the ALTP Trust Fund to be 3.241 cents per litre from 1 July 1987 by the insertion of section 14b into the Principal Act. This varies by 0.723 cents per litre the rate which would otherwise have applied from 1 July. Provision is also made for the continuation of the indexation provisions to apply to the new relevant rate of 3.241 cents per litre. Clause 13 of the Bill provides for the revenue generated by the 0.723 cents per litre adjustment, in the period prior to these amendments coming into force, to be paid out of the ALTP Trust Fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In accordance with the established indexing procedure for the rate of duty of excise on motor spirit and diesel fuel under ALTP, this variation of 0.723 cents will be indexed with the associated revenue to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund in due course. It also provides for any investment income which may accrue to these monies whilst they are held in the ALTP Trust Fund to likewise be paid to Consolidated Revenue. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill make provision for the declaration of an approved administrative organisation. The Department of Transport and Communications will be declared. Clause 8 of the Bill enables payments to be made from the ALTP Trust Fund to an approved administrative organisation. Clause 9 of the Bill includes administration of road programs within the limit of allocations under Section 18 (2). It also increases the percentage share for this category from 0.618 per cent to 0.752 per cent with a compensating adjustment to the National Roads percentage share. There will be no variation to funding for arterial and local roads. Clause 10 of the Bill provides for payments to an approved administrative organisation on closure of the Fund. Clause 11 of the Bill provides for the Minister to request that a proposed program be submitted to him for approval from an approved administrative organisation. Finally, Clause 12 amends the current audit certification requirements for annual statements of expenditure to be provided by the States and approved organisations pursuant to Section 30 of the Act. This is to bring the certification requirements into line with current audit practice. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the Senate's modifications of the resolution appointing a Joint Committee on Electoral Matters. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. The PRESIDENT —I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Leader of the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine, nominating senators for membership of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Beahan, Coulter, Harradine, Schacht and Short, having been nominated in accordance with the resolution appointing the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, be appointed members of that Committee. Debate resumed from 7 October, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.22) —The Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 were before the Senate when the Parliament was dissolved in June this year. They make up a particularly depressing example of what can happen when governments persist in legislating by Press release. On 11 June, on 30 July and, again, on 22 December last year the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced in Press releases a number of operating standards which superannuation funds and approved deposit funds were going to be required to meet in order to be eligible for relevant taxation concessions. These announcements were made, I admit, following consultations with various interested groups and they were made with the specific purpose of ensuring that superannuation arrangements are directed at meeting genuine retirement needs and also at ensuring that members' entitlements are protected. In essence, the standards provide for such things as improved vesting of benefits arising from both employee and employer contributions, improved preservation requirements and measures that will ensure greater member involvement in the control of superannuation funds and improved security of members' benefits. The Bills are supported by the industry, which is particularly anxious that they pass as quickly as possible. After all, it is now well over a year since the first two of the Minister's Press releases were issued. As I have indicated, the Bills in this package essentially establish not only the grounds for the new standards but also the bureaucracy for the regulation of superannuation funds, and simultaneously alter the administration of the insurance and life office commissions. A new regulatory bureaucracy is to be established by integrating the Commonwealth's various regulatory functions in the insurance, superannuation and actuarial areas by bringing them under the responsibility of a new, single statutory officer-the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. The major Bill, the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, establishes the regulatory structure for the superannuation industry, but does not, itself, establish the guidelines, most of which, as I have said, were announced by the Treasurer and commenced operation on 1 July 1986. However, they still require legislative backing for validation purposes. The Bill also allows for guidelines in the future to be made by regulation. The Bills are long awaited in practically every sense; they are considerably overdue. At the time they were first before the Senate-that is, in June, prior to Parliament being dissolved for an election-the question of whether the guidelines should be made by regulation was the only concern that we had with the legislation. Since then, we have consulted widely with the industry. The Life Insurance Federation of Australia, indivi-dual companies involved in the industry and the Institute of Actuaries of Australia have gone to considerable lengths to impress upon us the need to get this legislation through quickly. The guidelines announced by Mr Keating on 11 June 1986 commenced operation at the beginning of the following month and, as I have said, they still have no legislative backing. Often there are good reasons for having delegated legislation; that is, regulating to implement changes in government policy, particularly when it is in response to what can be quite quick changes in the needs of industry. We need to remember that the Senate's powers with regard to regulations are the same as they are with regard to other legislation, as the Government discovered, to its cost, when the regulatory start-ing date of the Australia Card legislation was discovered. As a consequence of that, we were able to indicate that, even if a joint sitting had been held to pass the Australia Card legislation, the Senate was in the position, and was prepared to use its powers, to refuse to establish a starting date. As I said a moment ago, the fact that this Bill is now before the Senate well over 12 months after the Press releases indicating those guidelines came out has illustrated what pitfalls there are in governments persisting in this odd form of legislation. One of the problems facing the industry is that it is in a considerable state of uncertainty as a result of this. We have had letters from the Institute of Actuaries and we have been contacted by the Australian Mutual Provident Society (AMP) and individuals representing major companies, all of whom want to see that this legislation goes through quickly. They admit that there has been a great deal of effective consultation with the industry. They admit that, in the main, they are happy with the legislation. They are anxious that it not be delayed any further. The industry itself wants regulations suppor-ting broad legislation. It argues that superannuation is a fast moving area today and that legislation would have grave difficulties keeping pace with the good and frequent changes that it foresees. The Institute of Actuaries expressed, in a quite long letter, its concern that regulations be the mode of operation in the main. It said that there are two main reasons for the Institute's belief that a regulatory approach is appropriate. The first is the range of plan designs and structures, and the second is in regard to pace of change. The letter points out, in part, that the variety of plans in existence is huge and that the task of drafting legislation to set out standards that will satisfactorily address that variety is commensurately large. The letter continues: There is no doubt that, even with the best advice possible from the industry, some plans that are reasonable per se in all respects, albeit unusual in design, will be subject to unintended effects of any legislated standards. While legislated changes could cope with such problems, clearly it will always be much more difficult to achieve necessary or desirable change in a timely fashion through this route, as opposed to changing regulations. Of course, we use the regulatory process in many other areas in this place, such as setting up a variety of changes involved in medical benefit schedules and medical practice. On the question of change of pace, the Institute says that it expects that the pace of change will continue to be high for the next few years. It has suggested further changes and hopes that these will occur as the economy and practical realities allow. Other changes no doubt will become desirable in reaction to particular events on the industrial front, particularly in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Institute said that ordering change by altering regulations is likely to be much more timely than what is possible by legislative change and therefore would be welcomed by most trustees. Therefore, from the Institute's point of view, it is much more appropriate that the proposed occupational superannuation standards be regulated rather than legislated. The former approach would be more likely to allow plans to react in timely fashion to emerging trends and needs. The Institute believes that the Government's proposed course is appropriate and, to take a fully legislative approach would not be in the best interests of plan members because it would fail to recognise adequately the dynamic nature and wide range of superannuation, and the need to avoid the adverse effects of an inflexible mode of control. So there is considerable support for what the Government is doing. That is hardly surprising, given the amount of consultation that went on. Generally, all parties inside and outside the Parliament welcome the contents of the legislation. By and large this includes the use of regulations, at least as far as the industry is concerned. I repeat that by the same token we deplore the practice of not only legislating by Press release but allowing many months, and in this case well over a year, to elapse before presenting to the Parliament a Bill for debate. In the last couple of weeks we have received a number of letters from people in the industry, indicating increasing agitation in their hearts and minds with regard to these untoward delays. The AMP Society, over the signature of its Manager of Public Affairs, Mr Brown, in its latest letter to us, said in part: Above all else, we want legislation as soon as is possible. The Life Insurance Federation of Australia has written to us saying: I wish to confirm that the . . . Federation . . . believes that it is critical that the above legislation be passed by the Senate without further delay. It points out quite rightly: The industry is already experiencing significant difficulties because the legislation is not operative. That letter appeared over the signature of its Executive Director, David Purchase. On those grounds it is a major responsibility of the Senate to deal expeditiously with this legislation and to accept that the industry wants regulatory control in the way that is planned in this legislation, that the Bills have come forward, albeit somewhat tardily, only following intensive discussions with the industry and that the control is in the best interests of all concerned-the industry and the people who invest. The fact that these delays have occurred has caused considerable concern to all parties. We therefore will be endorsing the requests made by the industry that the Bills have a speedy passage and we will not act to support anything moved in this chamber that is likely to delay that passage. Senator PARER(Queensland)(10.34) —When looking at retirement incomes, the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 are some of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this Parliament in recent years. There are, for instance, something over 280,000 funds operating today in Australia. A lot of them are commonly called mum and dad type funds. Superannuation is simply nothing more or less than a contribution by employees and/or employers and self-employed people during their working lives for retirement. There are a number of schemes but basically they fall into two categories. One, of course, is the benefit promised type scheme. This is a scheme whereby, maybe in most cases, employees and employers make contributions into a fund and they are guaranteed a certain return at the end based on the final average salary. Where these schemes exist there is a vested interest by the employers to ensure that the type of investment they make is the best type, otherwise they will find themselves in an unfunded situation and they will have to make up the difference. The second type of scheme, which has become more prominent in recent times, particularly with the emergence of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the trade union movement schemes, is the contribution-type scheme. Under this scheme the return on retirement to an employee who has contributed is simply based on the performance of the investment of those funds. It is of interest to note that in recent days that these people, the employees, would suffer most from the collapse of the share market because the return on the funds would be reduced substantially. There is no way of knowing, until one comes to retirement, just what the pay-out will be under a contribution-type scheme. The schemes are taxed or are not taxed in various ways and I think it is worth drawing the chamber's attention to these. Contributions by employers are tax deductions but these amounts are taxed when received by the employee as part of a benefit. Contributions by employees are not allowable deductions but are exempt from tax when returned to the employee as part of the benefit. Investment income is not taxed when received by the fund but this income is taxed when passed on to the employee as part of the benefit. Basically, that is a brief summary of the superannuation schemes we have in Australia today. The legislation, regrettably, is deficient in two major areas. I recognise that, as pointed out by Senator Haines, the industry would like this legislation to go through in the shortest possible time because it has been waiting a long time for it to be brought forward. But it is deficient in two major areas: firstly, it relies for its date of implementation on Press releases, which introduces an element of retrospectivity; secondly, it should contain standards, which is what everyone has been waiting for, but it does not include any standards at all. It is legislation with Claytons standards. In regard to retrospectivity, I think the attention of the chamber should be drawn to the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills of 27 May 1987. I note, for instance, that Senator Haines is a member of that Committee. The report states: Although clause 2 provides for the Bill to come into operation on a date to be fixed by Proclamation, clause 4 would apply the Bill, in effect, from 1 July 1986 so that superannuation funds and approved deposit funds would be required to comply with the conditions established by the Bill from that date in order to gain concessional taxation treatment. Sub-clauses 4 (3) and (4) would also permit regulations setting operating standards for funds to be given retrospective effect to a day not earlier than 1 July 1986. The report goes on to state: It appears that the basis of this retrospectivity is to be found in press releases which the Treasurer made on 11 June, 30 July and 22 December 1986. Once again the Committee has occasion to draw to the attention of Senators the practice of the Treasurer of treating his press releases as de facto changes to the law by introducing legislation backdated to the day on which he first announced the proposal to change the law. . . . . . . . . . The practice of `legislation by press release' carries with it the assumption that citizens should arrange their affairs in accordance with announcements made by the Executive rather than in accordance with laws made by Parliament. The Committee questions how persons can be expected to comply with the law when its terms are not publicly available but may only be ascertained from a reading of Ministerial press releases and when the Minister concerned issues further press releases modifying or adding to the terms of the original press release. No wonder confusion reigns within the industry and it is so enthusiastic to get at least something through. The Committee goes on: . . . condemns in the strongest terms the practice of `legislation by Press release'. I think it is worth referring to the list of Press releases surrounding occupational superannuation. On 16 December 1985 the Treasurer (Mr Keating) issued a Press release which was headed `Guidelines for the Implementation of the Proposed Productivity Decision and Draft Operational Standards for Superannuation Schemes'. The basis of that was to point out the payment of the proposed productivity award in the form of superannuation-the famous 3 per cent. Attachment A to that Press release carries guidelines for the implementation of the proposed decision and draft operational standards for superannuation schemes. It has quite a number of pages to it. Attachment B spells out in some detail provisions in relation to vesting, provisions in relation to preservation and portability, the security of benefits, and-I shall come back to that later-in house asset restrictions which have caused a lot of concern among the smaller schemes, because the Government has consistently stated throughout that the assets should be restricted to some 5 per cent of fund assets. This is of concern to the smaller funds which may, for instance, purchase a building which may represent 85 or 90 per cent of the assets. In that Press release it was stated under the heading `Timing of Introduction of Standards': It is the Government's aim to introduce legislation in respect of certain of the standards in the 1986 Autumn Sittings of Parliament. In the Press release dated 16 December 1985 it was stated that the intention of the Government was to introduce standards in the autumn of 1986. We are now in the spring of 1987 and still do not have those standards. That is the concern of the Opposition. In June 1986 a further Press release was issued by the Treasurer in relation to operational standards for occupational superannuation funds. The basis of that was that the Government had completed a review of the draft of operational standards against the background of submissions. Attachment 1 outlines the implementation of the so-called operational standards. The Press release also referred to the creation of the new position of the Occupational Superannuation Commissioner, about which we have no problems. It goes on to say: When fully operational, by mid 1987-- It can, I suppose, be claimed that if it had not been for the election that may have been the case. This goes back to 1985 and we still have no standards whatsoever. Again, this is an example of why we object to legislation by Press release. Part of this Press release states: All new funds, regardless of size- and bear in mind this was, to repeat the date, somewhere in June 1986- are required to inform the Occupational Superannuation Commissioner- who, I might say, still does not exist- no later than 1 October 1986, if established between 16 December 1985 and 1 July 1986 and on establishment if established after 1 July 1986. It goes on, in regard to investment standards: Investments of superannuation funds are to be directed towards achieving maximum returns to members consistent with the sound management of fund assets. I do not disagree with that: I think the most important aspect of any superannuation fund is that the trustees have the absolute obligation to do that. In regard to the Bill, I am concerned about the clause that allows the Commissioner under regulation to decide just how fund assets will be invested. For instance, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Government will decide to issue to the Commissioner an instruction that he should be looking at Australia Reconstructed and that maybe 20 per cent of all funds should be offered as soft loans to people who get the nod of approval from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Press release continued: The placing of a general limit (say 5 per cent) on the assets of a fund which may be invested in any single company, asset or person, will be given further consideration in consultation with relevant interest groups. We still do not know where that stands. The Press release then referred to the details regarding the Occupational Superannuation Commissioner. Again, we had another Press release from Mr Keating on 22 December 1986, which was headed: Operational standards for occupational superannuation funds, and tax deductibility of superannuation contributions by unsupported employees. It referred to the tax deductibility of super-annuation payments by unsupported employees in 23fb type funds. As I mentioned earlier, our great concern is with legislation by Press release. We have seen this undertaken ad nauseam in many other areas but particularly in the taxation area. We now see it in the superannuation area. The problem arises from not having standards spelt out even in the Bill. I think it is worth referring to a Press release put out by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia Ltd (ASFA) just last week. The President of that Association, Mr Alan Hauserman, made very clear in that Press release the concerns expressed by the Association at its national conference. The Press release stated: Mr Hauserman restated the Association's opposition to the process of `Legislation by Press Release' which bypasses the Parliamentary process. Press releases are not detailed enough to clarify the action required to comply with proposed standards. It continued: Mr Hauserman also voiced ASFA's concern that the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill in its present form gives the Government almost unlimited powers to make regulations affecting superannuation funds. The Press release stated that Mr Hauserman believes: the Bill should be modified to define the regulatory powers of the Government more precisely. It continued: . . . also urges the Government to release forthwith the draft Regulations, so that these can be considered by Parliament and the public in conjunction with the Bill. That same conference was addressed by Mr Ray Stevens, a Director of Mercer Campbell Cook and Knight. This company is probably one of the most prestigious consultants and actuaries in the field of superannuation. Mr Stevens stated: Instead of the last two years being the best in history for our retirement income provision, they have probably been the most disastrous on record for those of us dedicated to efficient and adequate superannuation for the community. Fund administrators and their advisers have never been so busy, but they have been mostly running around in circles with little to show for all the activity. Members of funds have probably never been so confused. He continued: The reason is . . . ham-fisted Government interference . . . the Government needed to maintain an image of promoting wage restraint. On the other hand the Government and the ACTU needed a wage increase or a substitute for a wage increase to maintain their accord. The result was the productivity deal-a deal on superannuation involving two parties which knew very little about superannuation. They were caught like the meat in the sandwich. Regrettably, so were the members of the funds. He pointed out: The productivity deal was without logic, first because it sought to require employers to provide extra superannuation benefits regardless of the level of benefits already provided, and second because it imposed restrictions on the extra benefits which made it difficult to integrate them with existing benefits. Out of this disaster came the Occupational Superannuation Commissioner's Interim Group, or- as Mr Stevens called it- the birth of the Octopus. He referred to the Treasurer's actions and his approach to superannuation as akin to those of a drunken duck shooter. He continued: Hastily conceived ideas have been introduced with immediate effect by the issue of hastily drafted press releases. I referred to those earlier. He continued: . . . the delay in giving the Group proper legal status means it has had to operate for an unacceptably long period without staff who have superannuation experience. Both Government and the industry . . . accept that if formal establishment of a Commissioner's office proceeds the key personnel will have to be recruited or seconded from the private sector. Until this happens the lack of appropriate knowledge and experience will continue to create confusion and frustration. Mr Stevens made a point of referring to the lack of communication abilities of people within the Interim Group. As an example he takes an extract from the Interim Group's information circular No. 2, which states: To the extent that entitlements to benefits (including withdrawal benefits) are normally calculated by the fund on the basis of an employee's contributions, `employee-financed benefits' refers to those contributions accumulated with interest at a rate appropriate to the net earnings of the fund. Just after that circular came out, Mercer Campbell Cook and Knight was asked to write an article which included an explanation of what this meant. The company checked with the Interim Group, which confirmed that the meaning was the same as it had given to the company when an ASFA delegation discussed the draft of the circular. After the magazine had gone to the printers the company was embarrassed to learn that the Interim Group had changed its mind. However, by good fortune the Interim Group changed it back to the original meaning by the time the magazine was released. Mr Stevens stated: To me the most annoying aspect is not their lack of ability in English expression, but their failure to alter the draft after its shortcomings had been pointed out. He stated that it would be disturbing to think what would happen if sections such as that ever became the basis for a dispute in the courts. Another problem raised by Mercer Campbell Cook and Knight arises out of the self-assessment process. The Interim Group in its information circulars emphasises that these are provided only as guidance for trustees. It states: The onus is on trustees to ensure that their schemes comply with the preservation standards. Mr Stevens stated that there have been: particular cases where the Interim Group has not even be prepared to follow its own guidelines. One can imagine this unsatisfactory and confusing situation. Mr Stevens continued: Where the Interim Group's interpretation of a Press Release differs from that of the trustees, can the trustees act on their interpretation and be confident this will not lead to problems with the Tax Office? In addition we have situations where the Interim Group has changed its mind on the meaning of a Press Release, sometimes more than once. On what basis do trustees certify that they have complied with all relevant requirements during that period? The intervention by the Government in the trustee arrangements is also something I would like to address. According to the actuaries and consultants with whom I have spoken, it is just not possible to set down a single arrangement which is suitable for every type of fund and every industry situation. The initial Press release from the Interim Group attempted to lay down two arrangements. It did so in one paragraph of 11 lines. Subsequent Press releases and information circulars devoted nearly five pages to clarification of the original statement of 11 lines. There have been discussions with the Interim Group by the people in the industry. But at no stage has anyone in the Government or the group stopped to ask whether all this was really necessary. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) kicked off his second reading speech-and again I think this is relevant-by stating that in his Press releases of 11 June, 30 July and 22 September 1986 he announced various operating standards which superannuation funds and approved deposit funds will be required to meet in order to be eligible for relevant taxation concessions. Having done that, one would have expected that we would have seen the standards in this legislation. But we have not seen the standards. I must say that I am concerned that Senator Haines has stated that she is not prepared to support any moves by anyone that might enable this Bill to be looked at fairly carefully to ensure that when it is passed, it will be passed in a fashion that will be workable. In summary, I would like to point out the problems we had with these Bills. Firstly, the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill allows the government of the day, whatever government that may be, unlimited power to make regulations on any aspect of superannuation without prior notice being given to the community and without prior reference to Parliament. It appears that there is an error in clause 16 (4) of the Bill in that line 37 states that the Commissioner is `deemed to have confirmed the decision'. Under the present draft, the Commissioner is `deemed to have confirmed the decision'. Under the present draft, the Commissioner is deemed to have confirmed a decision to revoke a fund's tax status if he does not respond within 21 days of a request for review. This alteration gives the Commissioner more time to respond, but treats a lack of action as revocation of earlier decisions rather than confirmation. Therefore, lack of action is treated as revocation of an earlier decision rather than confirmation of a decision. So, simply, there is an error in that clause. While the responsible use of regulations in a complex and changing area like superannuation is appropriate-no one objects to that-the history of this Government's approach has been anything but responsible. That is a major concern for the industry. Press releases have announced major changes with immediate effect. Any consultation with experts in the field has taken place after, not before, the announcements. The only body that appears to have been consulted prior to each announcement is the Australian Council of Trade Unions which has only recently taken any interest in superannuation and could hardly be considered as experts. Senator Stone —Experts in tax avoidance. Senator PARER —Thank you, Senator Stone. In fact, as the honourable senator knows, in discussions we had only last week or the week before in this place, we saw the Government aiding and abetting the very tax avoidance systems in respect of which it was so very critical of so many others. Our aim is to ensure that this Government properly considers and develops its proposals before they are implemented, that Parliament is consulted instead of being bypassed and that the community has notice of the Government's intention to change the rules in a major way. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.00) —The Senate has before it a package of three Government Bills which we are debating cognately. They are the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987. Although these three Bills supposedly represent the fruit of nearly four years of investigation and consultation by the Government, they are really no more than a very broad framework of the Government's intentions. Unfortunately, within this framework there are genuine causes for concern. In a recent Press release my colleague Senator Stone reminded us of some of these concerns. He said in that Press release: The legislation will fundamentally and profoundly affect the future development of the occupational superannuation industry in this country, as well as the civil rights and the financial interests both of the fund trustees and of the enormous body of fund contributors. He went on to say: Yet, it does not even attempt to set out the basic principles and standards on which that vast array of regulatory powers and authority it would confer on the Treasurer and the new Commissioner would be based. They are strong words indeed. But the facts are that this framework, this bits and pieces legislation and the matters that are before us today are vague. They are incomplete in their content and, regrettably, they rely far too heavily on regulations for substance. In fact, we have a standards Bill before the Senate today and we are being asked to consider the standards which it purports to set out. But this chamber is abrogating its legislative responsibility be leaving the setting of those standards to the bureaucrats by way of regulation. Superannuation really should be of a long term nature because it affects people's security and contracts span many years. Therefore, there is no room for uncertainty in this Bill. The broad thrust of standards that will apply to superannuation funds should have a permanency about them and be enshrined in legislation as such. I submit to the Senate that these standards should not be subject to the dictates of the day to day whims of bureaucrats or even the temporary aspirations of indulgent Treasurers. I believe that all honourable senators should agree with me when I say that superannuation schemes are a very important component of the financial affairs of most Australians and they should be treated as such by this Government and by this Parliament. I think it is disgraceful that the Australian Democrats have walked away from this responsibility in this chamber today. There is an obvious need for superannuation, for its proper funding and for adequate safeguards to protect those who are insured. For too long, unfortunately, governments have not adequately planned funding for social security pensions. Government benefits for the aged and for infirm retirees have largely been met from Commonwealth taxation. However, given the aging nature of the population, there is a limitation to the capacity of governments and young taxpayers to continue meeting such a growing commitment. Increasingly, the amounts that aged pensioners receive from government are found to be inadequate to meet their everyday needs and commitments. In fact, a person's retirement pension should be funded over the whole of his life. This is a fundamental principle that we have ignored for too long. Superannuation schemes must be encouraged. But they must also have the confidence of the investors. For these reasons, the legislation concerning the operation of superannuation funds really should be explicit. The contributors must have confidence that the conditions attaching to these funds will not change over the period during which these people will be associated with a fund. Yet, what has this Government done? It had done nothing concrete to enshrine this security until it presented to the Senate this very inadequate piece of legislation, despite the fact that the report of the task force investigating the matter was tabled in the Parliament in 1983. Let me comment briefly on the bad phenomenon of what we call `legislation by Press release'. In line with the habit of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of late to dole out proposed legislation piecemeal through the Press, we have seen three separate Press releases relating to this legislation since December last year. Senator Stone —Each one correcting the mistake of its predecessors. Senator WATSON —As Senator Stone reminds me, each one correcting the mistake of its predecessors. How can the industry have confidence? It is no wonder that the interim groups keep changing their mind as to rules affecting funds. How can the public and fund managers be expected to comply with the law, especially in this complex area of superannuation and taxation, when it seems that the legislation is not yet publicly available, has not been mentioned in the Parliament, and information can be gleaned only by monitoring ministerial Press releases or by carefully reading certain technical newsletters? The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on more than one occasion has criticised the Treasurer's practice of treating his Press releases as de facto changes to law. The Committee has condemned this practice. Members of this chamber-the Australian Democrats, the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia-all agree that the practice of legislation by Press release is bad and carries with it the assumption that citizens should arrange their affairs in accordance with announcements made by the Executive rather than in accordance with the laws made by Parliament. The Government has been condemned by its own senators and by this chamber. The legislation also introduces the concept of retrospectivity. As a consequence of this legislation by Press release, the Bills will, in effect, involve retrospective taxation. While clause 2 of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill provides for the Bill to come into operation on a date set by proclamation, according to Treasurer Keating's announcement it will take effect from 1 July 1986. Who are we to believe? The Government should stand condemned for the confusion in the public mind that surrounds the application of these Bills. I believe that the emphasis on regulation is far too great. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this package of Bills is the great emphasis it places on regulation as opposed to legislation. In other words, the bureaucrats will decide what they believe to be best for the industry, rather than this fully informed Parliament legislating on the matter. I submit that we are abrogating our responsibility as a parliament. We are walking away from our responsibilities, not only to the contributors, but to the people of Australia. This practice is happening all too often. Clause 7 of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill outlines an extensive list of operating standards for superannuation funds that will be subject to regulation. I submit that clause 7 should contain the detailed operating standards written into the clause. Why are they not there? The clause should provide for this, but the Government has walked away from that responsibility. It is a disgrace on the part of the Government, and it does not help the superannuation industry. Governments used to follow this practice. If one looks at section 23f of the Income Tax Assessment Act one will see that there are a lot of definitions and requirements to be met. But this standards Bill does not contain any definite standards. It will be left to the bureaucrats in future to determine, at their whim, what they feel the regulations should be, on a day to day, ad hoc basis. There will be regulations regarding the disclosure of information to members. That is fair enough. I submit that these issues are so important that they should be enshrined in a concrete fashion in this legislation. Clause 8 outlines the regulations that will apply to approved deposit funds. Approved deposit funds are currently in a sort of no-man's area because they are new and fairly novel. There has been no legislation until now to govern the operation of these approved deposit funds. It is true that the industry is saying, `Yes, we want some guidance from government. We want some legislation'. But the Democrats say, `Well give them any sort of legislation, just so that we can say we have passed occupational superannuation legislation'. In the process they are saying, `We'll let not only the details but also the principles be determined by bureaucrats'. Let me remind the Senate of the open-ended nature of this legislation, because the funds themselves have to pay an open-ended cost for this bureaucratic service which is being imposed by Government. We are reliably told that these regulations have almost been drafted and are almost complete. If they have been drafted, why are these standards not incorporated in this Bill? Why have they not, preferably, been included in the Bill as legislation? The Government does not have the decency to submit the regulations with the Bill which is before us today. The Government stands condemned in two areas: it has not included the standards in the legislation as such, and it has not submitted them as a separate part of the legislation. What is the Government afraid of? What does it have to hide? This extensive use of delegated legislation is such a disturbing trend that this Parliament should make a stand to prevent its extension. As duly elected senators and members of parliament, we should be wary of abrogating too much of our responsibility, a responsibility that the Australian people have given to us. Having been given that responsibility, we are walking away from it and placing that responsibility in the hands of bureaucrats. As my colleague Senator Parer said, some of these people in the Interim Group keep changing their minds as to what they want from the industry. While delegated legislation is appropriate under some circumstances, many of the issues that are the subject of regulation in this package of Bills could be, and should be, more appropriately addressed by this Parliament and should be the subject of debate in this chamber. I acknowledge that, for some reason, the President of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia has, in the past, supported this line or regulation. I am surprised that no government member has said that. Senator Stone —Their President does. Senator WATSON —We know that the President does, but if one rings members of the industry, one will find that they express some surprise about this approach. It is certainly not a unanimous view. I wonder whether this decision was made at a meeting of a fully constituted council, because the Government certainly picked this up and said, `Because of this, we are legislating in this particular way'. I have not found, in my extensive involvement with superannuation funds, anyone who is not concerned about this over regulatory approach. Superannuation funds have all too often been the vehicle for tax avoidance. If one leaves things to regulation, obviously one leaves open the opportunity for a wide variety of schemes to be put forward. It is rather strange to see a reduction in the Tax Commissioner's powers, given the fact that superannuation funds have been vehicles for tax avoidance and that, in other areas of legislation, the Government is actually strengthening the role of the Commissioner of Taxation. For some reason this Bill will take powers away from the Commissioner of Taxation. In fact, all the non-taxing areas will be taken away from the Tax Commissioner. Responsibility for the conditions relating to these funds will be handed over to the new Insurance Commissioner. In fact I can see a situation where there will be a conflict between what the Taxation Commissioner wants of funds by way of conditions in future and what the Insurance Commissioner deems best. Who will be stuck in the middle? It will be the trustees of the insurance funds. This is an awful situation in which to place insurance fund trustees. In other words, the situation could arise increasingly where there is conflict between what the Commissioner of Insurance wants and what the Taxation Commissioner wants. Given the draconian cost that can be attached by a Commissioner of Taxation to non-compliance, I warn the insurance industry to watch out. The overseeing and supervisory role of the Commissioner of Taxation is being taken away in respect of the non-revenue requirements. Therefore, I submit that the attempts to consolidate the powers of the Commissioner of Taxation in some areas are being reversed in this superannuation legislation. As for the powers of the Insurance Commissioner, it is my belief that the great discretionary powers reserved in him are far too large. As an example, I draw the attention of the Senate to clause 13 of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. This clause allows for special circumstances in which funds may be excused from meeting all conditions of operation. This is an extraordinary provision. Are they going to have different standards for trade union superannuation funds as opposed to employer-type funds? The Commissioner has got that power. He is an officer of the Government and can be directed. It is disgraceful that one can have different standards where the Commissioner has this discretion to excuse funds from meeting all requirements. There is no excuse under the conditions of the taxation legislation, so why should this discretionary power be given to the new Commissioner of Insurance to allow him to allow some funds or classes of funds the opportunity of being excused from meeting all the conditions? This is abhorrent. The question is this: are operating standards to be adhered to or are they not? If we go to the trouble of creating legislation which can then be overridden at the discretion of this new Commissioner for Insurance, surely this gives him far too much power. It is a dangerous precedent and we should not allow it to get off the ground in this or any other Bill before Parliament. I must mention the incomplete nature of the Bill. The problem with this package of Bills does not stop with the list I have mentioned. Not only do they lack substance and abrogate too much responsibility, but the fundamentals of the Bills are quite unclear. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has had cause to criticise the Bill for lack of detail. Senator Haines agreed to that principle as a member of that Committee, but this morning she said that she would not agree to our amendment to refer this to a Senate select committee so that it can investigate and report on those aspects which are unclear. What does she want? She wants two bob each way-a big name for herself on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and then to line up with the Government to allow this package a safe passage because the Government and the so-called industry want this Bill. I submit that they do not want the Bill in this incomplete form. Clause 3 of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill was given particular attention. The definitions of two vital terms, `approved trustee' and `approved rules', rely on regulations, the details of which have not been disclosed to the Senate for a full explanation. How disgraceful! The Committee said that the vagueness of these definitions contrasted markedly with the corresponding definition of the Income Tax Assessment Act. I would like to take the Senate through a comparison, but we do not have the time. Why has the Government been so long in considering the content of the Bills but then presented them in such a vague and incomplete form? The vagueness of these Bills leaves them wide open to manipulation. There is a danger that the vagueness of these Bills opens the possibility of manipulation and, given the enormous amount of money held in superannuation funds, it is only right for us to expect adequate protection to be afforded to these investors. The framework of clause 7 of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill does not satisfy me, because fundamental safeguards are required. My colleagues in the House of Representatives were of the view that protection was needed against coercive tactics by powerful trade unions, and this opens up another area of potential criticism. In his second reading speech, the Minister told us: In developing this legislation, the Government has been anxious to establish a regulatory system incorporating the principles of self-assessment. What does that mean? The whole onus will be on the trustees to ensure that the funds satisfy the operating standards. I question whether this principle is a good one to apply to the standards required for funds that control such huge amounts of money, money which is essentially earmarked for people's future retirement benefit. The Government's primary objective should be to ensure the security of investments that are held on behalf of people through trustees, to ensure that they are kept going to protect them in their latter years. Another fundamental issue is the independence of the Commonwealth Actuary, and I believe that his office is under threat. It is important that we should make this point in the Senate chamber. The independence of the Commonwealth Actuary is threatened by the provisions in the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. The reason is that the office of the Commonwealth Actuary is to be brought under the control of a new Insurance Commissioner. I submit that the effect of this would be similar to placing the office of the Commonwealth Auditor-General under the Department of Finance, because he will lose his independence. This is a major criticism. Given his widespread responsibilities, Parliament should not allow this, and the select committee I am proposing should investigate this matter. What about the financial burden? As a final point, I would like to note that there has been quite a lot of disagreement at industry level as to whether the costs associated with superannuation funds should be borne by the industry, as the Government proposes. It has been estimated that the total industry contribution initially was about $6m, but it is the open-ended nature of the cost of having to service this bureaucracy that is open to question. I would suggest to the Government that it is no less bound to produce an effective form of legislation by virtue of the fact that the money to finance the proposal comes from outside the Government coffers. Because of all these deficiencies, and the vagueness and inconsistencies and the need to protect the future investments of millions of Australians, the Senate should send these Bills off to a committee. It has taken the Government almost four years to get to this current unsatisfactory situation and, despite the cry from the industry for some legislation to support the plethora of Press releases, this legislation has to go to a committee for review. I deplore the fact that there is not one Democrat senator in this place to listen to the debate, given the importance of this legislation to the people of Australia. Senator Stone —And their total hypocrisy about suspending civil liberties. Senator WATSON —I agree, Senator Stone. The scrutiny by a Senate committee will enable a wide range of input both from the industry and those who will be affected by this legislation. It can then report in an informed manner to the Senate on a matter of great national importance. On behalf of the Opposition, I move: Leave out all words after ``That'', insert: ``(1) Notwithstanding its recognition of the desirability of legislation being introduced expeditiously to regulate occupational superannuation in Australia, the Senate notes that the proposed legislation makes undue use of delegated legislation to achieve its objectives and notes further that this is contrary to its longstanding objection to making the rights and liberties of Australian citizens, including their right to join union superannuation funds or any other funds of their choice, unduly dependent upon action which an executive body may or may not take, at its discretion. (2) The Bills be referred to a select committee, to be called the Select Committee on Occupational Superannuation, for inquiry and report, without limiting the generality of the reference, on the following matters: (a) whether the legislation adequately sets out objective principles, standards and rules governing the use of regulations, particularly as they might affect- the investment powers of fund trustees, the degree of direction or limitation provided by the legislation, and the longstanding principles in respect of retrospectivity; (b) the practicality and appropriateness of the provisions set out in the legislation for review of decisions of the Commissioner; (c) the extent to which the legislation derogates from the proper authority of Parliament by placing undue reliance upon regulations. (3) The Committee report on or before 17 November 1987. (4) The provisions relating to the membership, powers and procedures of the Committee be contained in a subsequent resolution.''. If that amendment is successful, I will move subsequently a motion relating to the composition and membership of that committee. I believe it is important that the Senate agree to this amendment. I think it is significant that there will not be an undue delay. The committee is to report by 17 November. It has taken four years to get to this unsatisfactory state. What is happening to some of the funds at present because of the tremendous crash on the stock exchange is another reason why we have to take care and why this has to be done properly. I appeal to all honourable senators to support this amendment and the foreshadowed motion. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.27) —I rise on behalf of the Opposition to support and second the amendment moved by Senator Watson. Senator Robert Ray —We did away with seconding about four years ago. Senator SHORT —I thank Senator Ray for his advice. The amendment seeks to refer the package of Bills before the Senate-the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987-to a Senate select committee for examination and report within a period of no more than four weeks-by 17 November. The Bills that we are debating are very important Bills indeed. They relate to fundamental changes proposed in the administration and organisation of the superannuation industry. The main Bill is the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, the purpose of which is to establish the conditions and the supervisory requirements which superannuation funds and approved deposit funds (ADFs) must meet in order to be eligible for concessional taxation treatment under the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Bill provides for these supervisory functions to be performed by a newly-created office-the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. There are accompanying Bills to establish the office of Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner. As I said, this is a very important matter indeed. The superannuation industry is a huge industry. It is an industry that is vital to every Australian. The vast majority of Australians-this is becoming increasingly so as the years go by-are reliant and dependent on superannuation for their income support in their retirement years. Therefore, what we are debating today really touches every Australian. It is absolutely essential that what this Parliament does in the area of superannuation be subject to the most careful scrutiny on behalf of the people of Australia-the superannuation contributors, the future superannuants, and the existing superannuants of this nation. In the last 24 or 48 hours we have seen gyrations on the stock markets of the world which have important implications for superannuation funds, as Senator Watson just mentioned, because of the investment that superannuation funds have in the stock market. If nothing else, the events of the last 48 hours should have alerted us to the need for the most careful scrutiny of any matters pertaining to the superannuation institutions and, for that matter, to other financial institutions in this country. This legislation has been a long time coming about, particularly given the size of the industry, to which I have referred in some degree. To give an idea of the size of the industry, a report released just last week by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia Ltd showed-this only takes us to 1985-that the Australian superannuation industry now controls over $50 billion in funds. That is an enormous amount of money. In the past two years that figure has grown significantly following the introduction of many new types of superannuation schemes and the increasing involvement of industry and union superannuation schemes which, in turn, have attracted thousands of new contributors. We are talking about an industry which has something like 280,000 individual superannuation funds. We are not talking about small beer; we are talking about something that is fundamental to the investment climate and to the standard of living of every Australian. One extraordinary aspect of the present situation is, as I said, that the matter has been so long coming to the Parliament. Of even more concern is the fact that the legislation that we are now looking at is legislation which eventually struggled into the Parliament after almost 18 months of government by a series of Press releases by the Government. Press releases were put out purporting to define what the new legislation and the new rules were going to be, each subsequent Press release differing from the one before. The legislation that we are looking at now is, in turn, different from that. As Senator Stone said when opening this debate on behalf of the Opposition last week-other speakers have referred to it today, particularly Senator Parer and Senator Watson-the confusion surrounding the legislation because of the process of attempted government by Press release is a matter of very great concern. But it goes further than that. It goes to the whole basis of what parliament is all about. What we are seeing here is a government that is increasingly, through its arrogance and its abrogation of the role of the proper parliamentary process, bypassing the Parliament and bypassing the elected representatives of the people of Australia by dictating and directing Government actions outside this Parliament. I think I am right in saying that most of the Press releases that were put out on this subject in the last 18 months were put out when the Parliament was sitting. Despite the fact that the Parliament was sitting it was ignored by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) who, by acting in this way, really just confirms the arrogance that he has displayed in virtually every action that he has taken as Treasurer of this country. It is an arrogance that the Australian people are becoming increasingly to resent and to be extraordinarily angry about. So we have a first major difficulty in the fact that the legislation has come about as a result of vague, waffling Press releases over a lengthy period, and that has bred a lot of confusion. The second main issue of great concern to the Opposition is that the main purpose of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill is to allow for the prescribing, by means of regulations, of operating standards for compliance by superannuation funds and ADFs in order to be eligible for the relevant taxation concessions under the Income Tax Assessment Act. What that means is that the Government proposes to set the standards for this industry outside the ambit of the Parliament. Far from this Bill being an occupational superannuation standards Bill, as its name purports, there is not a standard in it. That is the Opposition's basic objection to this Bill. We support the need for change and improvement in the superannuation industry. Let there be no doubt at all about that. We agree with the Government that changes need to be made. The end objectives of the Government and the coalition in this matter are broadly bipartisan. Where we differ very widely from the Government is the means of achieving these objectives. It may be that, in the end, the means that the Government proposes are means with which we could agree, but our problem is that we do not know the means because the Government has not set out the standards; that is, the means to achieve this end result. That is a quite extraordinary way of going about legislation, of going about effective and responsible government. Government by delegated legislation, which is what we are really talking about in this Bill, is an abrogation of government; it is an abrogation and a bypassing of the parliamentary process. Apart from anything else, I believe that that provides grounds for very great concern and strong opposition to the way in which the Government is going about this matter. As I have said, the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill relates to a fundamentally important industry. Therefore, there is a need for considerable care in looking at the details. As I have said, the basic standards are not there. Even the Bill itself gives some very considerable grounds for concern. For example, clause 22 of the Bill-this is the point to which I have been referring-enables the Governor-General to prescribe regulations from time to time. Obviously, that clause will be very fully utilised. If the Bill becomes law it will herald the commencement of a process of legislation by regulation. This Bill is only the start of a series of new superannuation laws in this country. This is not the be all and end all; it is the starting point of a whole series of new laws that will have to flow from it. As a result of this Bill, we are no further progressed in terms of interpreting the Government's myriad technical proposals over the past two years. In fact, it could well be suggested that we have gone backwards. We have not advanced the cause of the industry. Senator Stone —We have got much more uncertainty. Senator SHORT —As Senator Stone points out quite rightly, we have added confusion upon confusion, concern upon concern and disruption upon disruption. No industry can operate successfully in that situation. We have gone backwards for the reasons I have just mentioned. Prior to the legislation coming into force, a body called the Office of the Superannuation Commissioner has been producing interim group information circulars. To my knowledge, it has produced three of those, apparently with an air of a certain amount of authority. If one reads the information circulars, one finds that they bear great differences from what appears to be being proposed in the legislation. We ought to be able to assume that they may be treated as indicative of the way in which the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner, when his office is established, may think when he has had time to prescribe the regulations in the legislation, but it is a very uncertain and confusing situation. The key clause of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill is probably clause 7. It gives the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner the power to prescribe standards in respect of almost anything to do with the operation of superannuation funds. The clause states: The standards that may be prescribed include, but are not limited to- those are the key words- standards relating to the following matters: A range of matters are listed which are fundamental to superannuation. There is the question of vesting, the preservation of benefits and the portability of benefits. None of the matters described in clause 7 have been expanded upon, except in a very limited fashion through the interim group circulars of the Office of the Superannuation Commissioner to which I have referred. Those circulars have very doubtful authority. We will have to wait until we see the further standards before we know their relevance or validity. I mentioned the words `vesting', `preservation' and `portability' as contained in clause 7. As I understand it, this is the first time that those words have appeared in superannuation legislation. I think I am correct in saying that. They are very specific technical terms. Those terms often mean different things to different people. For example, the word `vesting' will usually be defined quite differently depending on whether one is speaking to an actuary or a lawyer. We do not know from the Bill what definition the Government has in mind for the use of the word `vesting'. As I understand it, we will have to wait on that until the regulations are introduced. That is an absolutely and totally unsatisfactory situation. Clause 7 (2) (h) allows the Commissioner to prescribe standards in relation to `the investment of assets of superannuation funds'. That is an enormous area, an area of the greatest possible interest to every Australian. It is the subject of contentious debate at the moment, and has been for some time, as part of the whole area of the role of unions in superannuation funds. It is an important part of the Australian Council of Trade Unions document Australia Reconstructed, about which there have been very varying views from all sides of the political spectrum. There must be a much greater clarity or interpretation of clause 7 (2) (h) before one can come to grips with what it is about. One could go on in a similar vein about the Bill. But the point which I come back to and which the Opposition has come back to time and again is that we in this chamber cannot look sensibly and responsibly at this legislation because the guts of it are not there. The guts of the legislation are to be found in the regulations which are to be prescribed. The regulations are not before us. As I understand it, and as Senator Stone mentioned in this chamber recently, it would appear from comments made by officers of the Department of the Treasury in the recent Estimates committee hearing that the drafting of regulations is very well advanced. If that is the case, why will the Government not bring forward those regulations to enable us to look at them in the context of the legislation? If that were done, we would be on much clearer ground as to what we are talking about when discussing this legislation. There appears to be no likelihood that the Government will do that but it is one of the reasons why we want to refer this package of Bills to a select committee so that, hopefully, these matters can be looked at quietly, deliberately and responsibly in a professional context in what is a very complex issue-so complex that it is simply not possible for this chamber, as such, to look at it even if it had the material. We need a committee to look at the issue and advise this chamber. That is why we are seeking the referral of the legislation to a Senate select committee. We appreciate fully the wishes of the industry-and it is our wish and the Government's wish-that the matter be resolved quickly and expeditiously. It has dragged on far too long. That is the fault of this Government. There is no doubt about that. The Government has allowed this matter to drift for years without bringing in legislation. Now it wants to rush legislation through the Parliament. We are not prepared to agree to that. We stopped the Government doing so in May. It tried to rush the legislation through this place in the dying days of the last Parliament. We objected and refused to allow that to happen. We had expected that when the Government came back with its legislation in the new Parliament it would at least have advanced its thinking at least so far as taking this Parliament into its confidence on where the whole thing was going. But as far as I can detect there has not been one additional word of explanation from what was the case when the last Parliament was dissolved. We appreciate the need for an early resolution of this matter. That is why, in our motion, we have put a very tight time limit on the committee's deliberations. We are suggesting that the committee report on or before 17 November. That is only four weeks from now and that delay will not affect in any detrimental way the course of the industry. It would be time very well spent. I am absolutely amazed at the attitude of the Australian Democrats in this matter, particularly the attitude of Senator Haines today in this chamber. Senator Haines was a member of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills which recommended that further detailed consideration be given to these matters. Now Senator Haines, on behalf of the Democrats, refuses to allow the matter to be subject to the very scrutiny that she was a party to saying should happen. Perhaps we should not be too surprised. The inconsistency of the Democrats is not something that has suddenly surfaced on 21 October 1987. It has been endemic and with us since the day the Democrats were formed. But it is very regrettable that they should have taken this attitude on a matter which is of such fundamental importance to all Australians. If we, as parliamentarians, really believe that we have a role in safeguarding and looking after the interests of Australians, there is no area that I can think of in which that role needs to be played more than with this legislation. It is probably wishful thinking to hope that the Democrats might change their minds before we vote, but I urge them to do so in the interests of the constituency of each and every member of this Parliament-the Australian people. I am pleased to support Senator Watson's motion. I commend it to the Senate for urgent and sympathetic consideration by all parties. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.50) —I support the amendment moved by Senator Watson to the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill. I do so because, as has been said by previous speakers on this side of the House, with the notable exception of Senator Haines, this package of legislation before us today is, I seriously suggest, a disgrace to the parliamentary process. This is not legislation regarding some minor question; it will fundamentally and profoundly affect the future development of the occupational superannuation industry in this country. In the course of doing that, it has the capacity to affect the civil rights and financial interests both of the fund trustees who have the responsibility for managing or supervising the funds-I think Senator Short mentioned that there are 280,000 separate funds-and the enormous body of fund contributors. In passing, I should declare my interest in this matter. During my brief time in the private sector I-and particularly my wife-became a potential beneficiary of a superannuation fund contributed to by my employers during that time. Therefore, I have a personal interest in what happens with the superannuation industry. Of course, I have that interest in common with millions of other Australians. This legislation was submitted to the Parliament initially in May this year. That was almost 18 months after the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had made his first Press statement on the matter. At that time, due to the devoted work of my colleague Senator Short and others on this side of the chamber, and with the support at that time of the Australian Democrats, the Senate rejected the Government's then attempt to rush through this legislation before the double dissolution of the Parliament. One might have thought that under those circumstances the Government would have taken advantage of the respite which had been forced upon it-if we put it that way-or that it had obtained, to look again at the drafting of the legislation to seek to overcome at least its worst deficiencies and inadequacies. But the Government has simply resubmitted the legislation in its quite unsatisfactory previous form. As Senator Watson and Senator Short said-and Senator Parer may also have said-this procedure on the Government's part is breathtaking in its arrogance; at least it would be breathtaking if we had not become so accustomed, not only in this place but throughout the country, to the arrogance of this Government, particularly the arrogance of the Minister formally responsible for this legislation, the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Government's arrogance is all the more notable because the deficiencies of the legislation in its previous and still current form were previously pointed out by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. That Committee, which includes senators from both sides of the chamber, condemned in the strongest terms the Government's practice of what the Committee rightly termed `legislation by Press release' as a method of changing the law. Let us look at one or two specific things which that Scrutiny of Bills Committee said. Senator Haines was, at that time, a member of that Committee. In relation to clause 3, sub-clause (1) of the Bill, which contains definitions of `approved rules' and `approved trustees', the Scrutiny of Bills Committee said: The lack of detail in these definitions contrasts markedly with the corresponding definitions in sub-section 27a (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 which set out the approved rules- these rules were set out in that Act of the Parliament when Acts of the Parliament were being drawn up by governments which were not disposed to evade the Parliament as this Government continually does- rather than leaving them to be prescribed by regulations and which detail certain approved trustees- that is, the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936- while leaving scope for the content of that definition to be expanded by regulation. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber are well aware that, particularly in an area as complex as that of superannuation, a quite extensive use of regulations may be necessary. The fact that we are drawing attention to and objecting to is that this Bill does not proceed on that basis, which, as Senator Short has said, is common ground; it proceeds on the basis of drawing up what purports to be a framework of standards. Of the three Bills before us, I am specifically referring to the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. It contains no standards and leaves not merely regulations to be made to expand these matters but also regulations to be made to put the matters there in the first place. Let us have a look at another segment of the comments of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee last May when these same Bills came before that Committee. In relation to clause 4 of the Bill, the Committee said: Although clause 2 provides for the Bill to come into operation on a day to be fixed by Proclamation, clause 4 would apply the Bill, in effect, from 1 July 1986- that is almost 16 months ago- so that superannuation funds and approved deposit funds would be required to comply with the conditions established by the Bill from that date in order to gain concessional taxation treatment. The Committee went on to say: It appears that the basis of this retrospectivity is to be found in press releases which the Treasurer made on 11 June, 30 July and 22 December 1986. Once again the Committee has occasion to draw to the attention of Senators the practice of the Treasurer of treating his press releases as de facto changes to the law . . . An Opposition group of senators did not make these comments; it was the Scrutiny of Bills Committee-a committee jointly constituted of senators from both sides of this chamber-which, in carrying out its absolutely proper functions, drew attention, as I have said, to the practice of the Treasurer of treating his Press releases as `de facto changes to the law by introducing legislation backdated to the day on which he first announced the proposal to change the law'. This is not the first time. The report then referred to another report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in 1986: . . . it appears that the Treasurer found it necessary in this case to modify or add to the terms of his initial announcement . . . By those dulcet terms, the Committee actually meant that the Treasurer found it necessary to rectify his former errors. The Committee report continued: . . . so that the de facto legislation may be said to have been amended before it was introduced into the Parliament. The practice of `legislation by Press release' carries with it the assumption that citizens should arrange their affairs in accordance with announcements made by the Executive rather than in accordance with the laws made by Parliament. The Committee questions how persons can be expected to comply with the law when its terms are not publicly available but may only be ascertained from a reading of Ministerial press releases and when the Minister concerned issues further press releases modifying or adding to the terms of the original press release. The Committee continued: The Committee condemns in the strongest terms the practice of `legislation by press release'. When, in November 1985, the Committee requested the Treasurer's comments on the fact that, in almost four years of existence, it had never received a response to a comment made by it on a Bill for which the Treasurer had been responsible, the Treasurer responded that, due to the considerable time pressures continuously experienced by his staff and the limited number of officials engaged in the legislation area, a practice of not responding had been adopted. A practice of not responding to the reports of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee of the Senate had been adopted. Senator Short —He is above the Parliament. Senator STONE —The Treasurer is above the Parliament. The Committee concluded: The Committee is aware- of course, Mr Acting Deputy President, we are all aware- of the burdens which the Government's programme of taxation reform has imposed on the Taxation Office. Whether it should properly be described as taxation reform may be another matter. The Committee report continued: It is also aware, however, of the burden which that same programme has imposed on those who are obliged to comply with the taxation laws and, in particular, those who are called upon to advise on the legislation in a professional capacity. The Committee might have added the burden imposed by these processes on the members of this Senate and of this Parliament more generally. The report continued: The task of such persons is made doubly difficult by the frequent recourse to the practice of `legislation by press release' as a method of changing the law. At the outset of the debate this morning Senator Haines spoke on the original Bill; she did not speak to this amendment. Senator Haines, who as Leader of the Australian Democrats carries a heavy responsibility in these matters in this chamber these days, acknowledged, as we all do, the great difficulties imposed upon the industry. I will come back to a definition of that term `the industry' in a moment because it is significant to define it a little more closely as Senator Watson suggested. Senator Haines acknowledged the difficulties created for the industry by the inordinate delays which the Treasurer's inefficiency, if not worse, has imposed upon it. In a passing phrase, what one might call a throw-away line, Senator Haines referred to the undesirability of government by Press release. I may be wrong but I do not believe that I heard Senator Haines refer at any point in her remarks to the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. If she did so refer, of course I would retract what I now say, but I do not believe that I heard her refer to the report of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, of which she had previously been a distinguished member, which report I referred to at some length in the earlier part of my remarks. As I have said, notwithstanding her prominent part in that Committee's comments to the Senate some five months ago, Senator Haines told us at some length-I should say almost repetitively, but I do not wish to be unkind-that the industry, this term of art, wants the Bills now without delay. She told us that she had had discussions with the AMP Society, with some other major life insurance companies and with the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, or its representatives, and that the industry, as so defined, wants the Bills and that as a consequence-although Senator Haines did not put it this way-all these entirely admirable views that she and her colleagues on the then Scrutiny of Bills Committee had put forward only five months ago could be thrown into the discard. What does the superannuation industry actually consist of? It is certainly true that major life offices such as those that I have mentioned and their representative body, the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, do represent a significant component of the superannuation industry. It may not be without relevance that that is the particular component of the industry which holds out to itself-I think with justice, to date at least-the greatest prospect of attracting the commissions for the management of the new union-based superannuation funds. One would not want to pursue too far speculations which that connection arouses because one would be-- Senator Watson —You wouldn't want to ignore it, either. Senator STONE —As Senator Watson reminds me, I certainly would not want to ignore it, either. But let us be quite clear: this is not the industry; the industry is much more extensive than the interests of some large life offices with which it now seems the Australian Democrats too have allied themselves. We are used to the performance of the present Government in its relationships with big business, big corporations, but I had been labouring under what now appears to be the totally false impression that that was not the constituency of the Australian Democrats. So I found this experience very edu-cational indeed. Of course, the 280,000 funds are not for the most part managed by these major corporate bodies; they are managed by private trustees with the advice of consultants. Perhaps they do not have the same easy access to the offices of Ministers as does the AMP Society. Senator Watson —One or two of them do. Senator STONE —Yes, perhaps one or two of them do. Let us be quite clear as to who wants this. Nobody can claim that the industry wants this. It may or it may not. All my understandings are that the smaller funds and bodies, such as consultants to those funds and other bodies such as the Law Institute of Victoria which have in their own professional capacity dealings with such funds and their trustees, are much less anxious to rush into the final form of legislation on this matter and that they would very much prefer to have these matters looked at again, certainly not in the drawn out process but expeditiously, with a view to tightening up the drafting in these Bills and filling in the black holes that the Bills presently contain. In that latter connection, let me mention some views from the Superannuation Committee of the Law Institute of Victoria which have conveyed to me and, I know, also to Senator Haines, as well as to some other senators in this place. The Law Institute Superannuation Committee has expressed in the most serious terms its concerns about the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill. It has said that it: believes that, as a matter of principle, substantive law which affects the rights of so many Australians should be enacted and not introduced by regulations. The Ins-titute considers the adoption of regulations to be an unsatisfactory method of introducing and, presumably changing the new controls sought to be imposed in respect of superannuation funds. Secondly, the Institute has expressed the view that the appeals procedure contained in this Bill is totally unsatisfactory. Because of constraints upon my time, let me turn to that latter question first. This is the kind of question which we believe should be reviewed before a select committee of this Senate with a view to amending the sections of the Bill which are deficient in these respects. The Institute says that it considers the provisions set out in the Bill for the review of decisions of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner to be unworkable-not merely defective, not merely undesirable in law in terms of natural justice and matters of this kind which normally in this place Senator Haines is the first person to spring to her feet to claim affiliation with, but unworkable. The Ins-titute says that it considers-I totally agree-that the 21 days notice which is laid down in the relevant provision of the Bill is simply insufficient for trustees to prepare an objection to a decision of the Commissioner. Under this Bill the Commissioner has power to make or break the operations of a fund and the trustees of that fund, under this Bill, are given 21 days to lodge with the Commissioner a reasoned objection-not merely an objection but an objection which is accompanied by reasons. The Law Institute of Victoria puts the view: In most cases Trustees will be relying on professional advisers to advise them of an effect of a decision of the Commissioner . . . The Law Institute Superannuation Committee says: . . . it is considered that the period of 21 days is far too short to permit the Trustees to be properly advised as to the course they should adopt and to respond to the Commissioner particularly as the nature of the objections must state reasons for seeking the review. The Institute suggests-it seems to me entirely reasonable, and it would be one of the suggestions that could be examined by the select committee which we are seeking-that the comparable provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act, namely, for a 60-day period of objection, should be similarly incorporated into this Bill as being much more appropriate; not merely more appropriate in terms of giving people a chance to make their objection but also more workable because one of the other clauses of this Bill has the effect that, if no such objection is proffered, the Commissioner's decision stands. Let me come to another provision which is linked with this one. Again, it is a provision which I think would benefit from serious scrutiny by a select committee of this place and, I would hope, reconsideration by the Government of what seem to be entirely reasonable propositions. The obverse of the 21-day objection provision is the 21-day confirmation or revocation provision which is available to the Commissioner. Having received an objection, the Commissioner then has 21 days in which to deal with it. If he does nothing, if he simply makes no finding, his decision is confirmed. That is why Senator Parer in his remarks earlier said that he believed that the Bill must be defective in this respect; he thought the Bill must mean revoked in that case. I would like to think that Senator Parer was correct in his assumption but I am afraid that he is not. I am afraid that this is what the Government intends. It intends that the new Commissioner shall have this draconian power simply by doing nothing to have his original decision given the force of law. This can happen not only by direction, but also by indirection. It can happen simply as a result of the file getting lost. I would hate to suggest that anywhere in the Treasury-or some outrider of the Treasury-a file might get lost. Nevertheless, these things do happen. To come to my conclusion, let me say more generally that what we have in this Bill-this is a point on which Senator Watson so effectively remarked-is a process of government not by statute but by regulation. Indeed, in this case, it is government seeking to do by way of regulation what so far has been done by Press release, involving in that process a total vacuum in terms of the knowledge of what this legislation, if passed, will produce and what its effects will be on the millions of people in Australia to whom it will apply. We are asked to put the trust of the Parliament in the hands of the new bureaucracy to be created by these Bills and to believe that at no time will ministerial influence be brought to bear upon it, although some other influence will perhaps be brought to bear on the Minister from certain quarters in this society which, given the close relationship between this Government and the trade unions, do not need much elaboration. Senator Watson —Bureaucracy which the funds have to pay for. Senator STONE —Senator Watson reminds me that this is bureaucracy which the funds themselves have to pay for. Indeed, one of the amusing-here I am being ironic-provisions in this Bill which industry is so anxious to have and is breaking its neck to have passed without delay is that concerning the function of the Governor-General, that is to say, the Executive. Clause 22 of the Bill states: The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing matters: . . . . and, in particular, prescribing fees payable in respect of any matter under this Act. I strongly support the amendment moved by Senator Watson for the referral of these three Bills to a Senate select committee to report to this chamber on or before, but not later than, 17 November-that is less than four weeks from today-with a view to expeditiously handling the Bills in an amended form, as I would hope the Government might agree to do, to effect their passage into legislation before the Senate rises. That is certainly our objective. To have the industry, in the form of the so-called large life offices, using its undoubted influence-which, I should say, it has sought to use on the Opposition too, but without success-in order to speed up, as it put it, this process by less than a month when these matters have been hanging around for up to 18 months, is extraordinary. I support the amendment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.19) —I do not intend to delay for very long the processing of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987, the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 and the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987. However, I have to make a few points. Firstly, the Opposition is putting up a fundamentally inconsistent argument. On the one hand, it is complaining that because of the long gestation of these Bills, interrupted, of course, by the Federal election campaign, that is fostering uncertainty in the community, the industry and among actual or potential beneficiaries of superannuation schemes. On the other hand, and, of course, totally inconsistent with that argument, the Opposition is simultaneously arguing that there should be a further delay resulting from our referring this Bill to a Senate committee. I am informed-I did not hear it myself-that the Australian Democrats will be not supporting the Opposition's amendment. Therefore, the Bill will pass through the second reading stage to the committee stage. The second point I make is that there is a fundamental misrepresentation in the Opposition's argument. The misrepresentation that I heard Senator Short make was that the delegation to regulation in this legislation of matters covering the details of specific superannuation schemes is an abrogation of the authority of Parliament, and so on. That, of course, is a fundamental misrepresentation, as I am sure both Senator Stone and Senator Short would acknowledge privately. Regulations have to be approved explicitly or implicitly by both houses of Parliament before they can become law. Senator Hamer —They cannot be amended. Senator WALSH —They can effectively be amended. If the honourable senator wants to go down that track I will remind him of the act of capricious sabotage perpetrated in the Senate last May over the northern prawn fishery. A little lobby group had got on to the Queensland National Party rednecks-the Queensland National Party runs along with every redneck idea-and the supine, spineless Liberal Party behaved in the way it has behaved for decades and refused to stand up to any of the foolish and outrageous demands of the National Party. The National Party tail again wagged the Liberal Party dog, and got it wrong. It put up an equally illogical argument, misrepresenting the facts as well, that the Government had sought to write into the relevant regulation a clause which ensured that the objective, which was to reduce the excess fishing capacity in the Gulf of Carpentaria, would actually be achieved, if the voluntary surrender and buy-back scheme had not succeeded, on a certain date, through an across the board cut in the entitlements of all those remaining in the industry. The Opposition misrepresented the facts, saying that that across the board cut was a confiscation of property without compensation. Of course, that was a gross misrepresentation of a beneficial entitlement, a privilege granted to those people, that is, a licence to fish. It then compounded that misrepresentation of fact with the illogical argument that the voluntary buy-back scheme would work anyway-in which case, of course, there was no justification either for its objection to the across the board cut, which was envisaged some years down the track if the voluntary buy-back scheme did not-- Senator Stone —How about talking about the Bill? Senator WALSH —I know that Senator Stone in recent years has had a cerebral decline of significant magnitude, no doubt due to his recent association with the rednecks of the Queensland National Party. However, in spite of that significant cerebral decline, I am sure that Senator Stone has not deteriorated to the point where he cannot see the fundamental illogic in the argument put up by the Opposition in regard to the northern prawn fishery. There was a de facto amendment of regulations in the Senate-an amendment which exposes the industry to the risk that the adjustments that every sensible person knows must take place may not happen, and which exposes the taxpayer to demands, some years down the track, for further Commonwealth Government money to bail the industry out of the troubles which it has got into because of the capricious sabotage of regulations by the Opposition in the Senate. Senator Stone —What are you talking about? Senator WALSH —I suggest to Senator Stone that he read the Hansard of the time if he is actually interested in the matter. The fundamental misrepresentation by the Opposition is that this is an abrogation or an undermining or erosion of the power of Parliament to allow for some of the rules to be set in regulations instead of in legislation. That, of course, is quite wrong. There is, in addition, a policy reason for moving in that direction which I think is set out very succinctly in a letter received by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 24 July this year from the Institute of Actuaries of Australia-hardly, I note for the record, a body which is noted for Trotskyist tendencies, anarchistic tendencies or, indeed, any sort of revolutionary tendencies at all. I would have thought that it would be regarded as a body which is sensibly conservative. I make that distinction, `sensibly conservative', of course, in order to separate it from the sort of misdefined conservatism, or so-called conservatism, of the Queensland National Party. Mr Pollard, the President, said in this letter, among other things: There is no doubt that, even with the best advice possible from the industry, some plans that are reasonable per se in all respects, albeit unusual in design, will be subject to unintended effects of any legislative standards. While legislated changes could cope with such problems, clearly it will always be much more difficult to achieve necessary or desirable change in a timely fashion through this route, as opposed to changing regulations. He goes on to make a number of similar points, one of which I think is worth reading. He said: In many instances plan trustees are likely to find the terms of their deeds at odds with conditions imposed upon or accepted by plan sponsors, and which place trustees in an invidious position. While Government announcements can indicate how such problems will eventually be solved (e.g. by legislative change), this is no substitute for the clear legal authority trustees need in order to meet changing circumstances. He then said: Therefore, from the Institute view it is much more appropriate that the proposed occupational superannuation standards be regulated rather than legislated. So, apart from the gross misrepresentation of fact by the Opposition, there are sound policy reasons for proceeding in the way the Government proposes to proceed. Moreover, apart from the difficulty of foreseeing every possible contingency-I think Mr Pollard used the term `unintended consequence'-when putting legislation up, a Bill which tried to cover all of those which were foreseen at the time even and accurately identified would obviously be very much longer and more cumbersome than the one which is before us. What I have said would have indicated very clearly that the Government will be opposing the amendment moved by the Opposition. I understand that the Australian Democrats have also signified their intention to oppose the amendment. The Opposition has forecast that it will move a number of other amendments at the committee stage and I will deal with them at that time. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.28) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I think I am in order in moving an amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Watson. I move: Leave out paragraph (1) of Senator Watson's amendment. Senator Watson's amendment would then simply provide for leaving out all words after `That' and inserting the words that the Bills be referred to a select committee. I believe that paragraph (1) of Senator Watson's amendment is not necessary for the purpose of referring the matter to a committee. I think Senator Watson would agree with me that paragraph (1) adds really nothing to the reference of this matter to a committee. Senator Watson —The seriousness of the issue is the reason why it should go to it. Senator HARRADINE —The honourable senator outlined that when he spoke about referring the Bills to a committee. I would be able to support the reference of the Bills to a committee on that basis. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —The question is: That the amendment moved by Senator Harradine be agreed to. Amendment negatived. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is: That Senator Watson's amendment be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J.Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M.Baume, Michael Panizza, J. H.Baume, Peter Parer, W. R.Bishop, B. K. Patterson, K. C. L.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G.Boswell, R. L. D. Reid, M. E.Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Short, J. R.Hamer, D. J. Stone, J. P.Harradine, B. Tambling, G. E. J.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Teague, B. C.Lewis, A. W. R. Vanstone, A. E.McGauran, J. J. Walters, M. S.MacGibbon, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Gietzelt, A. T.Beahan, M. E. Giles, P. J.Black, J. R. Haines, J.Bolkus, N. Jenkins, J. A.Burns, B. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Childs, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Coates, J. McLean, P. A.Collins, R. L. Macklin, M. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Ryan, S. M.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hill, R. Button, J. N.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reynolds, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Maguire, G. R.Chaney, F. M. Morris, J. J.Calvert, P. H. Schacht, C. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. OCCUPATIONAL SUPERANNUATION STANDARDS BILL 1987 Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.38) —I move: (1) Page 3, subclause 3 (1), definition of ``superannuation fund'', line 33, at end of definition, add the following words and paragraph: ``, but does not include: (c) a fund established as a result of an employer or employers being threatened, intimidated or coerced by a trade union or trade unions;''. The purpose of this amendment, which, as will be evident, differs considerably-in a qualitative sense, if you like-from the other amendments which I shall move to subsequent clauses of the Bill, is to highlight in the legislation what the Opposition foresees is likely to be a major problem with the operations of a significant section of the superannuation fund industry in the months and, more particularly, years ahead. I think the nature of this problem is evident enough without spelling it out at undue length. I shall therefore not weary the Committee by doing so. We have already seen the operations and activities of some segments of the trade union movement in this area of superannuation arrangements which have flowed from-and are part of, if you like-the national wage case processes last year. While I do not wish for one moment to suggest that there is anything in the least wrong with employees receiving improved superannuation benefits-on the contrary, it is common ground on both sides of this chamber that that is wholly desirable in appropriately regulated circumstances-nevertheless, every thoughtful and knowledgeable person who has some understanding of these matters and of the way in which they are presently being conducted in the industrial relations field in this country knows that considerable elements of pressure, intimidation, threat and coercion are being applied, I repeat, by some elements of the trade union movement to employers in this area. The purpose of the proposed amendment to the subclause is to provide in the legislation for a ground in the courts of the land against such action. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.41) —I presume that this is just a ritualistic amendment, and the Government will oppose it. Among other things, it leaves hanging in the air the question of how the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner could objectively determine those funds which had been established in the way in which the amendment alleges they have been established-that is, as a result of intimidation, coercion and so on by the trade unions. On those grounds alone-on the grounds of operational difficulty-I think the amendment does not deserve to be supported. That confirms my suspicion that it is just a ritualistic amendment. Amendment negatived. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.42) —I move: (2) Pages 3 and 4, subclause 3 (1), definition of ``year of income'', leave out the definition, insert the following definition: `` `year of income', in relation to a fund, means a period that is a year of income in relation to the fund for the purposes of the Tax Act, but excludes such a period the whole or a part of which occurred before the commencement of this Act.''. This does not require lengthy explanation. The purpose of this amendment is to deal with a question which has been the subject of remarks at some length this morning-not merely by me, but other speakers on this side of the chamber-namely, the objectionable nature of the retrospectivity provisions of this legislation, based upon the fact that the Treasurer (Mr Keating), having issued various Press releases on the matter, has failed to bring legislation before the Parliament to give effect to those Press releases until now. This amendment, if accepted, would simply wipe out those retrospective provisions of the Bill and would have the effect of making the standards which are to be made by the Bill under whatever process-by regulation now-first apply in respect of the year commencing July 1 next. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.43) —Given the Australian Democrats' past abhorrence for retrospectivity, I urge the Democrats to support this amendment. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(12.44) —One should concede that there is a bit more substance to this amendment. It deserves to be taken a little more seriously than the previous one. That having been said, the Government, of course, will not accept it because we believe that the expectations of the last 15 or 18 months should be confirmed and not abandoned. On the broader question of retrospectivity, there is nothing unique about this. It has been the practice for many years. I think that for as long as I have been in the Parliament it has been the practice with regard to taxation laws for amendments which affect the revenue base-and some other things, probably, sometimes-to be effective from the date on which the government of the day has announced them. That was the practice of the previous Government and it is the practice of this Government. There is no great breach of principle involved in extending it to the standards and superannuation fund. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Stone's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Alston, R. K.R. Panizza, J. H.Archer, B. R. Parer, W. R.Baume, Michael Patterson, K. C. L.Baume, Peter Puplick, C. J. G.Bishop, B. K. Reid, M. E.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Sheil, G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Short, J. R.Hamer. D. J. Stone, J. O.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Tambling, G. E. J.Lewis, A. W. R. Teague, B. C.McGauran, J. J. Vanstone, A. E.MacGibbon, D. J. Walters, M. S.Messner, A. J. Watson, J. O. W.Newman, J. M. Aulich, T. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Powell, J. F.Collins, R. L. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Hill, R. Button, J. N.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Maguire, G. R.Calvert, P. H. Reynolds, M.Chapman, H. G. P. Schacht, C. L.Chaney, F. M. Morris, J. J.Durack, P. D. Cooney, B. Question so resolved in the negative. Consideration interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.51 to 2 p.m. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of all honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a number of Aboriginal cricketers who are currently attending a final training camp at the Australian Institute of Sport for the bicentennial Aboriginal cricket tour of Britain in 1988. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to them a warm welcome and trust that their training camp at the Institute is a success. I also wish them well in their historic tour of Britain next year. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and the Minister for Industrial Relations. Does the Minister recall that yesterday I asked him whether the Government would reconsider its submission to the national wage case hearing in light of the dramatic developments on the stock market and the very bad current account figures for September, and that in reply the Minister described such a suggestion as `patently stupid'? Is it a fact that the Government today cited the stock market collapse as the reason for postponing the national wage case? In light of this development, does the Minister now agree that yesterday it was his answer to my question which was patently stupid? Senator WALSH —One patently stupid question is now being followed by another patently stupid question. Senator Chaney lacks the cerebral capacity to tell the difference between a postponement and a fundamental change of policy. Mr Willis gave an interview on this matter today and said that the Commonwealth had applied to defer the case for a week. He said nothing about any changes of the Commonwealth's submission or presentation to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on it. I understand that he said that other parties would be making submissions and that it was judged to be a good idea to put it off until next week so that, firstly, precisely what was going to happen to the stock market and a few other things was more clear and, secondly, other parties would have the opportunity to reassess their positions if they wished to in the light of that further experience. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I note the continuing confusion between Ministers Willis and Keating and now Senator Walsh on these issues. I ask the Minister whether he could perhaps remove some of the confusion by telling us whether he is saying that the Government is not going to use this delay to reassess its support for a further first tier, across the board wage increase. Is he saying that no reassessment will take place within the Government over this week's postponement, which has been obtained at the Government's request? Senator WALSH —As I understand it, that is the case; but I will seek confirmation from Mr Willis. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in the West Australian newspaper of 3 October reporting the Leader of the Western Australian branch of the National Party who was censuring the National Farmers Federation (NFF) for its poor campaigning performance during the July Federal election? What rural policies did the NFF promote which did not find favour with the rural electorate? Does the Government find difficulty in dealing with the NFF as a peak industry organisation which is so out of touch with the people it purports to represent? Finally, does Senator Walsh feel uncomfortable about sharing his views on the NFF's performance at the last election with the Leader of the National Party in Western Australia? Senator WALSH —In relation to the last part of the question, I always feel a little bit uncomfortable when I find that anybody in the National Party agrees with any view that I hold; indeed, I see that as a prima facie reason not for mindlessly changing one's view but for at least reassessing it. In the case of Mr Cowan, however, what really should be borne in mind is that Mr Cowan was looking for a scapegoat for the disastrous National Party performance during the recent election campaign. His attack on the NFF, which in a different context might be well merited, should be seen in the correct context; that is, that Mr Cowan, along with the National Party in Western Australia in general, was one of the Bjelke-Petersen toadies, one of the enthusiasts in the Joh for PM campaign. Since that collapsed disastrously for the National Party and for the coalition-although it was a good thing for Australia that it did-Mr Cowan is, of course, looking for a scapegoat or some camouflage to distract attention from the fact that he was one of the gung ho supporters of the ridiculous Joh for PM campaign, along with the National Party in Western Australia. Indeed, there was hardly a more loyal toady anywhere around the country than Mr Cowan and the Western Australian branch of the National Party. In respect of the earlier part of the question, particularly what rural policies promoted by the NFF were not favoured in the rural electorate, I do not think one can answer that with any certainty, but there is a high probability that the high profile campaign conducted by the National Farmers Federation against the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax was recognised by people in the rural community for what it really was; that is, a campaign run on behalf of people such as directors of Elders-IXL and a campaign which, had it succeeded, would have been detrimental to the constituency which the National Farmers Federation claimed to represent. I cite in particular the fringe benefits tax. When the statistics finally came out, they showed that some 5,000 farmers were affected at all-that is, less than 3 per cent of farmers were affected by the fringe benefits tax at all-and the average tax paid by those 5,000 people was only $1,000. The median tax paid by that 5,000 I would expect to be considerably less than $1,000. However, it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that the National Farmers Federation was certainly not representing the interests of the people it purported to represent, and less certainly one can say that that was recognised by the rural community in general and reflected in the fact that in all but three, I think it was, of 22 seats that the National Farmers Federation had targeted there was, in fact, a two-party preferred swing to the Labor Party. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that the highly respected economic commentator, Allan Wood, of Syntec Economic Services Pty Ltd, said on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation AM program this morning that the crash in world stock markets has made the Government's economic strategy irrelevant? Does he agree with Mr Wood that `We now have to go to a strategy of much more rapid adjustment in order to try and minimise the impact of this very severe external market crash upon us'? Senator WALSH —I think I explained to Senator Stone's satisfaction the ways in which a global collapse in share prices could adversely affect the Australian economy, while adding that there was at that stage, and so far as I am aware at this stage also, no evidence that either of those things was, in fact, happening. I did hear Mr Wood this morning and I was surprised to hear him say the things that he said. In particular, Mr Wood suggested that the decline in share prices would affect the revenue which would otherwise have been collected by the capital gains tax in this financial year. Senator Stone —He did not mention capital gains tax. Senator WALSH —I think he did. I will check that out. That was regardless of what ultimate effect variations in share prices might have on capital gains tax-induced, or near capital gains tax-induced, revenue, because revenue will be collected under a couple of other sections of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Because of the existence of an explicit capital gains tax, it will not affect the revenue this year. Any effects on revenue will be lagged by one year. The Treasurer remarked this morning in an interview, a transcript of which I have seen, that Syntec had been giving some pretty bad advice recently and that anybody who was taking Syntec's advice-- Senator Stone-Play the ball, not the man. Senator WALSH —Hang on. Do not be so impatient; I will draw the honourable senator's attention to a few facts. I think that even he would have to admit that the Syntec forecast turned out to be dramatically wrong-indeed, about as wrong as the forecast which he made at the same time turned out to be. Syntec's record in recent times has not been particularly good. I refer to the Syntec Business Outlook No. 168, which was published on 1 September last year. The Budget forecast for gross domestic product growth was 2.25 per cent. The Syntec forecast was one per cent; that is, less than half the growth rate which had been forecast in the Budget. The outcome was 2 per cent-marginally below, it is true, the Government's 1986 Budget forecast, but double the growth rate predicted by Syntec. In the same issue, Syntec predicted a Budget deficit of $4.3 billion, as against the $3.5 billion which had been forecast and the $2.7 billion actual outcome. In other words, once again, the Syntec forecast of the Budget deficit at that time was almost double the actual Budget deficit outcome. Syntec also predicted a trade weighted index of 45 as against the Budget forecast of 52 and a financial year outcome of 53.8. Following the last Budget, Syntec's record was not, to say the least, particularly good. Whether Mr Wood's views on the likely fallout of the big decline in share prices around the globe is correct or otherwise is something that remains to be seen. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister, in his response to my question, said that he had heard Mr Wood this morning, but he failed signally to respond to the question, which was whether he agreed with Mr Wood when he said: We now have to go to a strategy of much more rapid adjustment in order to try and minimise the impact . . . Will the Minister now respond to that question? Senator WALSH —Mr Wood expressed a view that some other people hold. The fact that Mr Wood has committed himself personally to that view is a matter which I do not regard as particularly relevant. Senator CHILDS —Has the Acting Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce seen an article in the International Herald Tribune reporting that `odd pockets of contamination' in food keep showing up 18 months after the Chernobyl incident? As the foods range from French mushrooms, English mutton and Turkish hazelnuts to fish from Finland, are steps being taken to protect Australian consumers from imported contaminated products? Senator WALSH —I have some information relevant to that question, supplied by the Australian Customs Service. It says: Currently a surveillance program is in place for checking for possible contamination of certain imported foodstuffs exported from identified risk areas. That is, areas of Europe which could possibly be regarded as risk areas because of the Chernobyl incident. It continues: The Department of Community Services and Health provides Customs with details of all foodstuffs exported from countries which are the subject of surveillance. The Customs function is to identify shipments and refer samples for testing. The responsibility for deciding whether the goods will be released rests with the Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health. It is not with Customs. Notwithstanding that, I cannot guarantee to get a response, because I do not represent the Minister here, but I do not think there would be any trouble in getting one from the relevant Minister as to the decisions made by the Department of Community Services and Health in regard to its responsibility. Senator MACKLIN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Given the fact that the paper entitled Advisory Structures and the Administration of the Department of Employment, Education and Training, which was circulated last week by the Minister, was silent with regard to the Government's intentions on the national language policy, and given the fact that the Government campaigned strongly in the last election on a promise to implement a national policy on languages, I ask the Minister: How is the Government going to implement its policy and promise? Which Government body or department will be responsible for the relevant programs? What expertise will it draw on, and who will be responsible for providing ongoing advice to the Government on this matter? Senator RYAN —It is certainly the case that the announcement of the national language policy during the last election campaign was a major element of our new commitments in the education area. The Government has every intention of proceeding with the implementation of that policy as announced. The Government will allocate $15.1m in 1987-88-and that will grow to $28.65m in 1988-89 and $27.3m in 1989-90-for the implementation of the national language policy. At this stage, it is expected that all programs in the national language policy package will be in place by the commencement of the 1988 academic year. Consultations will commence soon with State and Territory education authorities on aspects of the policy which are of direct relevance to them, once the details of the program components have been finalised. I remind the Senate that the national language policy is a balanced policy which addresses both domestic and external needs. It includes $5.3m in 1987-88, growing to $13.5m in 1988-89, to double the English as a second language new arrivals component from six to 12 months and funding for the ESL general support component will be at least maintained in real terms. Senator MACKLIN —Mr President, I draw the Minister's attention to the last part of my question, which was: Who will be responsible for providing ongoing advice to the Government on this matter? Senator RYAN —The Government has a range of advisers available to it currently through the Schools Commission and the Department of Employment, Education and Training. As a result of the restructuring of the advisory sources available to the Government, there may be some change in that. When final decisions are made on that matter I will let Senator Macklin know. Senator BOLKUS —Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General comment on media reports which indicate that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) recently seized a large number of illegal videotapes from a warehouse in Canberra? Senator TATE —I understand that officers of the AFP Gaming and Vice Squad carried out a raid on certain Australian Capital Territory video shops on Friday, 9 October, and perhaps early in the hours of Saturday, 10 October, and seized a substantial number of videotapes, certainly from a storage garage in Fyshwick. Perhaps as many as 2,500 pornographic videotapes were seized during that raid. I understand that the raids were undertaken as a result of a complaint from the censorship section of the Attorney-General's Department. The tapes were thought to be in breach of the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in that they may have been offered for sale or hire without classification by censorship authorities. The Special Crime Squad detectives are continuing their investigations. As charges may be laid soon and prosecutions undertaken, it is not appropriate to make any further comment on the particular raids, but it might be pointed out that this is the first case involving videotapes to be considered for prosecution under the Classification of Publications Ordinance as amended in 1984. If prosecution does occur in relation to a large number of the videos and a conviction is recorded, the penalties under that ordinance could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and follows the question asked by Senator Stone. The Minister for Finance, in his answer to Senator Stone, said that some people agreed with Mr Wood that there is a need for a more rapid adjustment of the Australian economy. Is the Minister one of those people? Senator WALSH —The simplistic notion which not surprisingly, I suppose, dominates the psyches of members of the Opposition is that one has only to write a prescription which is technically correct and the outcome will flow automatically. Apart from this being a less than totally scientific exercise about what may or may not technically be correct, judgments have to be made, by people who have responsibility for making policy, about what is achievable. While in that wholly abstract and, may I suggest, unreal world where most members of the Opposition dwell-- Senator Vanstone —For heaven's sake, you are boring. Senator WALSH —The honourable senator does not have to stay to listen. Most of us would be relieved if she left. In that hypothetical gross abstraction from reality, a person could write a formula which, as long as he believed it would happen, would produce a better outcome. But judgments have to be made about what is achievable. I know that that conflicts with the ideological prejudices that dominate the Opposition. The Government has made a judgment about both the direction in which change should be headed and the rate at which that change is achievable, as distinct from the Opposition which, at least during the recent election campaign-and if it has changed its mind on this matter I welcome that change-tried to peddle the supply side voodoo notion or nostrum, as Ross Gittins called it a couple of days ago, that living standards could be enhanced through snake oil remedies and policies of incentivation and all that sort of thing and that everybody could enhance his living standards via taxation cuts. Those opposite left gaping holes, of course, as to how they would cover the consequential blowout in the Budget deficit if their taxation cuts were actually put into effect. I mentioned Mr Gittins. In last Monday's Sydney Morning Herald, of Mr Howard's behaviour during the recent election campaign, Mr Gittins said: Overnight, the Treasury-trained former Treasurer began spouting supply-side nostrums. That is a bit of alliteration which is probably worthy of John Norton with a wet towel over his head. Nevertheless, that sums up succinctly the sheer irresponsibility and opportunism of the Opposition Leader during the recent election campaign. Still speaking of Mr Howard, Mr Gittins went on: The apostle of fiscal responsibility was proposing to cut taxes first and find the spending cuts later. To that criticism of Mr Howard, Mr Gittins might well have added that the former apostle of fiscal responsibility, that is, the former Secretary to the Treasury who now sits in this Parliament, was even worse. John Howard had a credibility gap of about $4 billion in his last Budget but Senator Stone still has a credibility gap of $18 billion. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Minister clearly is debating the question. I suspect that he has now finished his answer, so I will ask a supplementary question. Senator Walsh —I would love to read some more of Gittins's article. Senator CHANEY —I thank the Minister for indicating that he agrees that there is a theoretical need for more rapid adjustment and that it is obviously a matter of judgment as to whether a faster rate of adjustment is possible. I ask the Minister: What is his judgment as to the present rate of adjustment and is it his judgment that a faster rate of adjustment in Australia is possible? Senator WALSH —I know that a number of people on the Opposition side suffer from delusions of grandeur to the point where they believe they are infallible. I hope that I remain exempt from that affliction. I will not say what in my judgment should or should not be done. Apart from anything else, a Government decision has been made and all the members of the Government are bound by that. But one does not have to have delusions of grandeur to the point of embracing the doctrine of personal infallibility to see the essential and enormous qualitative difference between what this Government is doing-it is making adjustments at a significant rate in the direction in which the country and its economy must go-and the snake oil policies and supply side voodoo nostrums being peddled by the Opposition. The impending Budget deficit of those opposite is even bigger than the one Mr Howard left us with in 1983. Senator SCHACHT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has he seen a column in the Sydney Morning Herald of Monday, 12 October 1987, by a leading tax commentator, suggesting that a future Federal government which removed the fringe benefits tax, substantiation requirements and the capital gains tax would start at least $2 billion in the red? Is this an accurate assessment of the fiscal consequences if those reforms were dismantled? Senator WALSH —Any figure as nicely rounded with nine zeros as is $2,000,000,000 obviously is less than absolutely precise, although if we were to knock off $5 so that we did not have as many zeros the figure would be even more suspect because it would imply a degree of precision which, in this sort of context, could not reasonably be expected. With that caveat, I think that the estimate of Mr Burrell, the journalist concerned, of $2 billion is an acceptable estimate, if not a precisely accurate one. It is, of course, very substantially above the conservative estimates which had been assumed by the Government when putting together last year's Budget. In the period following such things it is very common for the Australian Taxation Office to make conservative estimates of incremental revenue received as a result of changes to taxation law. All that extra revenue of around $2 billion is attributable to the imposition of the capital gains tax (CGT), the fringe benefits tax and substantiation requirements. I indicated earlier that the final impact upon revenue of the CGT is not limited to the direct revenue collected under the capital gains tax provisions of the legislation; the increase in revenue under a couple of other provisions of the legislation is induced by the existence of a capital gains tax. Effectively, the existence of a capital gains tax puts a net under the whole income tax system and closes off the opportunities for tax avoidance which were so blatantly exploited during the late 1970s and early 1980s and so scandalously disregarded by the Treasurer of the day. Mr Burrell also noted in the article that the Opposition has problems on two fronts; achieving an acceptable deficit figure if it maintains its determination to abolish these tax measures, and also as being soft on tax avoidance-reinforcing its sabotage of the Australia Card. The article canvasses the possibility that the Liberals might address those problems by returning to a proposal for an 8 per cent retail tax. It will be very interesting, to say the least, to see whether Mr Peacock's views prevail, or whether Senator Stone's views, as expressed last weekend, prevail. If I may say so, that is another remarkable about-face by Senator Stone since he started keeping bad company. Mr Burrell concluded-and I think this is worth reading: It would be a measure of Mr Peacock's authority as shadow Treasurer to take up the consumption tax idea and prevail. But in the end, political reality will counsel otherwise. The sheer size of the revenue gap and the political difficulties faced in filling it means it would be easier simply to leave the Government's tax reforms in place and endure the embarrassment of a backdown. If Mr Burrell is correct in saying that the Opposition ultimately will become sufficiently responsible, in a fiscal sense, to leave the Government's tax reform in place, that should be welcomed by all responsible and informed Australians. Senator ALSTON —I refer the Minister for Finance to today's reported comments by the Treasurer that the stock market crash on Wall Street is due in large measure to financial markets changing their minds about the United States economy because of its chronic trade deficit and the recent rise in United States interest rates. Does the Minister share this view? If so, why should the Australian wipe-out not also be viewed as a long overdue, but essentially rational response to Australia's chronic and gargantuan foreign debt, the September record current account deficit and prime lending rates and long term government bond yields which are significantly higher than those of all of our major trading partners? Senator WALSH —As I indicated earlier, I have not had the time yet to read the full transcript of what the Treasurer had to say. But if it has been more or less accurately interpreted by Senator Alston, which is perhaps an heroic assumption that one is not entitled to make, I see no reason to disagree with the proposition that there has been a reassessment of the American economy, part of which was the fact that there had been a sustained stock market boom in the United States. All sustained stock market booms in history-with `boom' being defined as a level of prices for shares which is not sustainable by long term probable earnings or by asset values-will ultimately be followed by a decline in share prices, sometimes a small decline, sometimes, after a very prolonged and inflated boom such as we have gone through in the last few years, a pretty rapid decline such as the one that has happened in the last few days. I suppose at the end of that one can only say: so what? Share prices were too high and they have come down. So what? Senator ALSTON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Perhaps the Minister is hard of hearing but what I put to him was not that there had simply been an inevitable correction on the United States stock market, rather that the markets had taken the view that the state of the American economy was inherently unhealthy because of large trade deficits and increasing interest rates. If that is a correct view, why should that same view not be taken of the Australian economy and the reaction of Australian markets to all of those fundamental problems that beset the Australian economy? Senator WALSH —I apologise, Mr President. I was certainly remiss in not taking up that part of the question and I welcome the opportunity to do it now. Senator Alston's basic proposition is that the Australian economy and Australia's economic management are essentially identical to those in the United States. Senator Alston must have been in a time warp for the last five years because that would have been a fair comment to make of what happened when John Howard was Treasurer and he brought in that irresponsible Budget in 1982 which lumbered this Government with a prospective Budget deficit of nearly $10 billion and what has been happening under the Reagan Administration for the last five years. If Senator Alston could emerge from his five-year time warp he would realise that an essential difference between economic management in Australia and economic management in the United States is that we have a fiscally responsible government which has brought in a balanced Budget and the Reagan Administration continues to run enormous Budget deficits, I think, of the order of $200 billion or $220 billion a year, and as of this time has shown no indication of cleaning it up. In other words, the Reagan Administration is behaving in exactly the same way as the Fraser-Howard Administration behaved towards the end of its term. If its record during the recent election campaign is any indication, it would reimpose that on Australia should it get the opportunity to do so. Senator JONES —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to the reports referring to the heavy demand for seats by international travellers to Australia. I ask the Minister: Firstly, what action has been taken, or is being taken, to cope with the current heavy demand? Secondly, what steps have been taken to provide international airline passengers inbound seats to Australia to cover that demand? Senator GARETH EVANS —Every year at this time, with the onset of our spring and summer, the seasonal level of inbound traffic causes problems for passengers and airlines alike. This year the problem has been exacerbated due to the rapid growth in inbound traffic levels, which has been greater than anticipated. Given this pattern of peaks and troughs, airlines have traditionally responded to peaks in the level of demand by scheduling additional, or so-called supplementary, services over the peak periods. This is possible with the relevant government approvals under the various bilateral air service agreements to which Australia is a party. Scheduling of supplementary flights has happened this year as well with Qantas Airways Ltd having committed an additional 43 supplementary services over the period October 1987 to February 1988, with a further 19 proposed. This makes a total of 62 compared with 52 for the same period last year. In addition, my Department has approved a further 53 supplementary services by foreign carriers, with another 12 under consideration and further applications from foreign carriers are also expected. I should say that charter flights are particularly well suited to deal with periods of seasonal peaks and special events and the new charter guidelines which I announced in the aviation statement on 7 October could certainly encourage such charter operations. As regards additional scheduled capacity, which is important for the longer term as supplementaries are only something one does in a short term way, negotiations are currently under way, either at government or airline level, with seven countries, namely, Thailand, Hong Kong, Canada, the United States of America, Malaysia, Singapore and the Netherlands. Qantas, for its part, is re-examining its services in the light of the heavier than anticipated inbound tourism flows with a view to identifying whether additional short term leasing capacity is required. The company has advised me that it is looking at leasing a B747 Jumbo and a B767 for up to six months. Finally, the question nevertheless arises as to whether scheduled capacity will be adequate to deal with the expected boost of tourism in 1988. My Department will be discussing with Tourism Australia, the former Australian Tourist Commission, likely levels of demand from major markets for 1988 with a view to pinpointing problem areas and the action that will be necessary to overcome them. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister for Justice to Senator Crowley's question of him yesterday about the judgment of Justice Murray in the Family Court of South Australia from which she quoted an extract. Has the Minister yet studied the whole judgment of Justice Murray? If so, I ask whether he has noted the evidence given by the wife about her plans for the future in the following terms: She states that if she cannot get part time work she will stay full time at home. In her oral evidence in chief she told me that she now intends to start a family forthwith and has made arrangements to have an IUD removed within the next two weeks. She says that she now wishes to become a full time mother and stay at home, but nevertheless wishes to complete her examinations and continue her part time work until September next. That is, this September. Is it not clear that Justice Murray's judgment was influenced by the wife's evidence to this effect and that Senator Crowley's selective quotation from the judgment is an unfair and inappropriate interpretation of it? In these circumstances, will the Attorney-General, without delay, repudiate Senator Crowley's suggestion that Justice Murray should be removed from office? Senator TATE —At no stage did I suggest that the judge concerned ought to be removed from office. In fact, I deliberately refrained from doing so and I have no intention of adding further to the answer I gave yesterday. Senator VANSTONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister explain to the Senate why yesterday he was prepared to offer a comment in the form of an opinion on the basis of a section of the judgment? Having had the judgment provided to him, he is now not prepared to comment further on allegations made that a judge should be removed on the basis of one judgment. Senator TATE —I have not had an opportunity to read the full judgment or the transcript to which Senator Vanstone has referred. Senator MAGUIRE —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the high numbers of transactions on world stock exchanges this week and the consequent media hysteria about possible effects on economic activity. Is the Minister aware that Australia was experiencing an economic slump with rising unemployment as early as 1928, some 12 to 18 months ahead of the Wall Street crash in October 1929? Are the linkages between financial markets and the real economy overstated? What policy measures do governments now have in the era since World War II at their disposal to stabilise economic activity over the course of business cycles? Senator WALSH —On balance, the evidence very heavily is in the direction that Senator Maguire indicated; that is, that the stock market crash of 1929 was more a symptom of what was wrong with, if not the world economy, a large section of the world economy than a cause of it. Particularly for some European countries the boom of 1928-29 may have contributed substantially to the economic problems of Europe, and particularly of Germany, because capital-in the days when just about all of the world was on the gold standard-had been flowing out of Europe for speculation in Wall Street. It could reasonably be argued that in the era before October 1929 that was an aggravation at least, if not a cause, of the economic problems which afflicted most of Western Europe: the cause of the problem was the boom itself rather than the collapse which inevitably succeeded it. Since I have been asked this question I should perhaps take the opportunity to correct a tentative opinion which I gave yesterday in response to Senator Stone's query of what happened to the British economy after the bursting of the South Sea bubble in 1720. I said that I thought it had been followed by a fairly prolonged recession. That was the conventional wisdom of a number of general historians, but there seems to be agreement among modern economic historians that the financial crisis associated with the bursting of the South Sea bubble was largely quarantined to the markets for public debt and quasi-public debt instruments and, of course, to those persons who were heavily involved in speculation, gambling or whatever one likes to call it, and that the crisis did not overflow into the general financial system and did not engender a major recession in the real economy, as distinct from the casino economy of stock exchanges from time to time. In particular, I refer to an article published last year in the Economic History Review and written by Julian Hoppit, which, among other things, says: When the Bubble burst in August 1720 the price of assets in public credit plummeted and notable heads rolled, ensuring the place of the Bubble in the common folklore of English economic history. He went on to cite the very major decline in the shares of some prominent companies, including the East India Company, and in the Bank of England itself. He continued: The crisis of the national debt was catastrophic. But it is too easy to assume that when the Bubble burst that the whole of trade and industry was afflicted by a similar fit and languished in the depths of depression. Given the extent of the collapse, what is surprising is how few businesses seem to have been pushed to the wall. The number of bankrupts to be found in 1720 and 1721 . . . suggest that there is only limited validity to the claim that `There was a very marked contraction of business after the South Sea Bubble burst'. I table from that article a couple of pages which show in similar vein that a more disciplined examination of the economic history, as distinct from the social history, shows that the economic fallout from the bursting of the South Sea bubble on the real economy was in fact rather limited. Senator PATTERSON —I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer the Minister to the May economic statement decision to remove certain treatments of skin cancers and warts from the medical benefits schedule. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that this has resulted in items 3330, 3331, 3332, 3338, 3342 and 3346 being removed? Did these numbers include treatment for the removal of venereal warts which have now been implicated as a precursor to cervical cancer and have consequently been declared a `notifiable disease' by the Department? How can the treatment of a notifiable disease be treated as not rebatable under Medicare and why has the Government failed to respond to advice from the medical profession regarding this clear anomaly? Senator RYAN —I have some information available here to answer Senator Patterson's questions, but I do not have all the detail with respect to particular items in the Medicare benefits schedule. I will get those from Dr Neal Blewett and provide them to her as soon as possible. It is the case that the removal of keratoses and warts was affected by the May decision. The reason was that the removal of keratoses and warts was originally difficult, time consuming and done by specialists. Changed technology has meant that the majority of removals are now done rapidly and painlessly by general practitioners within a consultation. The old fee was for a procedure; the new fee is the appropriate consultation fee only. A separate item to cover removal of large numbers of difficult warts, anal and genital, is to be considered for inclusion in the schedule. Items for removal of skin cancers have not changed. That is the information I have available and, as I said, I will get more detailed information from Dr Blewett for Senator Patterson. Senator McKIERNAN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs to my question without notice on 7 October inquiring about details of a reported shortfall in key mining personnel, especially in the gold mining industry, and possible Government action in the Department to overcome the problem. I now refer the Minister to a further article in the Brisbane Courier-Mail on 20 October which reports that Queensland and interstate mining companies have joined the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia (Inc.) in recruiting mining personnel overseas. I ask the Minister to provide details of the number of migrants who have entered Australia or who have approval of entry pending to meet this reported shortfall and particularly to report on the exact number of approvals of people who are of South African origin. Senator REYNOLDS —I do recall Senator McKiernan's question of a couple of weeks back. I have some further information for him about this matter. The Department is currently negotiating a local arrangement for group nomination of 50 senior skilled personnel with the Chamber of Mines in Western Australia subject to the industry documenting domestic recruitment effort and training. This is seen as an interim arrangement only, as the Department is seeking to secure an industry based arrangement to meet shortfalls of skilled personnel nationally. This industry-wide arrangement is currently the subject of consultations between the Department and the Australian Mining Industry Council. Special negotiated arrangements are available to industries where occupational skills are in short supply in the domestic labour market. These arrangements allow streamlined processing of employer nominations at the Australian end in return for an industry commitment to the recruitment and training of Australian residents. The Department, in consultation with the Department of Employment, Education and Training, recognises the following skills as being in short supply: geologists, metallurgists, mining engineers and senior managerial personnel. The newspaper articles also mention that most applicants recruited are likely to come from South Africa, Britain and Canada and that delay could occur at the overseas end. This is entirely consistent with the Government's policies of encouraging global recruitment. Global processing priorities give family and humanitarian entry the highest priority and this, of course, applies across all countries. I will refer the second part of the question to Minister Young for his precise answer on the figures. Senator Short —I again ask whether the Minister will table the document from which she was reading. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document? Senator Reynolds —Yes, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —The Minister will table the document. Senator SHORT —I refer the Minister for Home Affairs to the platform of the Australian Labor Party as approved by the Thirty-seventh National Conference in July 1986. Chapter five, section B, paragraph 17 of the platform, under the heading `Constitutional Reform' and the sub-heading `National Symbols', states that Labor will seek: In the context of the preparations for Bicentennial celebrations, to initiate and support moves to establish with popular acceptance an Australian flag, national day and national anthem which will more distinctly reflect our national independence and identity. As the commencement of the Bicentennial is now less than three months away, I ask the Minister: What steps has the Government taken since July 1986 to implement that part of the party platform? What additional steps does it propose to take? Senator ROBERT RAY —It is rather a pity that Senator Short failed to read the preamble to the platform, which is the most crucial three or four paragraphs. I shall read it for his benefit. It states: Conference recognises that the Platform of the Party represents short and long term aspirations of the ALP. The programme for each 3 years of Labor government will continue to be drawn from the Platform. Therefore, Conference requests that the FPLP will in preparing the program for the next three years- (a) continue to give priority to economic recovery, a fair distribution of the benefits of economic growth and the improvements in the welfare and standards of living of Australian people; and (b) Implement other platforms and policies according to a time scale to be determined having regard to the above overall priorities of the Party. That sums up our attitude to the platform. There are 280 pages odd in our platform. The priorities overall in that platform will be determined by the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party. Coming to the specific part of the honourable senator's question, at this stage no steps have been taken to implement that proposal. Given the other priorities around, it may not even come up with the priority list in this three years of government. Therefore, Senator Short will not be able to go around the country patriotically bleating and stirring up all the emotions he would like to. He will not be able to run a redneck campaign on how we are not really monarchists or anything else. I am sorry to disappoint him but at this stage there are no particular plans on the drawing board. That is not to say that there will never be such plans, but I certainly think that there are higher priorities than that item in the platform. If the honourable senator asks me to table the document from which I am quoting I will refuse, because I will need it in a later debate. Senator SHORT —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer. Whilst I accept that normally there is a certain degree of flexibility in the Party's platform, this item relates specifically to preparations for the Bicentennial celebrations which, obviously, have a fixed time limit. Am I to take it from the Minister's answer that the Government will be taking no notice at all of that part of the platform? Senator ROBERT RAY —I repeat that the priorities for any Government activity are determined by the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, with reference to that policy. It is quite clear that no government could implement over a three-year period 280 pages of platform changes. It is up to us to determine those priorities. It is a right given to us by the Australian Labor Party Conference-carried last time without a dissenting voice. Senator JENKINS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I ask: Since the Government's decision a year ago to dismantle the English as a second language in schools program, can the Minister assure honourable senators that each individual State and Territory is giving as great or greater priority to English as a second language as it was given under the previous ESL program? Has the Minister received representations from ethnic organisations requesting the reinstatement of the ESL program? What funds has the Commonwealth Government made available to the Western Australian Government to maintain the ESL program or to fund the multicultural support unit in the Western Australian Department of Education? What steps will the Government take to ensure that the States maintain the English as a second language program as a high priority? Senator RYAN —The honourable senator is ill-advised in that there was never any decision to dismantle the ESL program. What happened was that there was a reduction in one aspect of the ESL program in the year before last. If the honourable senator had been listening to the answer to the question on the national language policy she would have learnt not only that the ESL program is not being dismantled but also that the new arrivals element of that program-the most important element from the point of view of establishing language competence at the outset-is to be doubled in the next financial year, with further increases in the following two years, and that the restored level of the ESL general support program is to be maintained in real terms. As to the questions about specific allocations for Western Australia, I do not have figures for Western Australia's share of the greatly increased funds with me. I will seek those for the honourable senator from Mr Dawkins. Senator JENKINS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to the last part of my question in which I asked what steps the Government will take to ensure that the States maintain the English as a second language program as a high priority. The ESL program relates to programs in schools. The additional funds for the new arrivals program refers to adult migrant education, which is quite apart from English as a second language program in schools. Senator RYAN —I must correct a comment made by the honourable senator in her supplementary question. The new arrivals element of the ESL program is for school age children. It is not a part of the adult migrant education program, which is a separate program administered through the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. All Commonwealth education programs funded under the special purpose programs are funded with a very high accountability requirement. Obviously, all funds allocated to the States under the ESL program-be they the new arrivals element or the general support element-will be properly accounted for in agreements with those States. All States add to those funds according to their own priorities, but I am not aware of any withdrawal of or reduction in funds in the ESL area by the States. In fact, I think in the case of New South Wales and South Australia there have been increases in those elements. Senator BROWNHILL —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware that the New South Wales Department of Housing regards money received by veterans in the form of a disability pension as income in assessing rent levels for veterans in State-owned housing, while Federal authorities such as the Australian Taxation Office regard such payments as compensation? Is the Minister aware also that an 85-year-old veteran is being threatened with eviction from his house due to this anomalous interpretation of the pension? Can the Minister explain whether this approach is justified and whether the Federal Government supports such treatment of returned servicemen and servicewomen? Senator REYNOLDS —I am certainly not aware of the circumstances described by Senator Brownhill. I certainly believe that the situation he describes sounds very much like an anomaly. I will ask Mr Humphreys, as Minister, to investigate the matter and to take it up with his counterpart in New South Wales. Senator FOREMAN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I draw the Minister's attention to recent Press speculation about the number of tourists visiting Australia. I particularly draw his attention to a small article in today's Age entitled `Travel Boom'. In that article it was suggested that tourists from Japan alone could number 600,000 by 1995 and possibly one million by the end of the century. Does the Government believe that these projected figures are possible? Will the Government seek to encourage more employment of Japanese speaking persons in the tourist industry as well as the provision of signs, et cetera at major tourist attractions in Japanese and other languages? Senator RICHARDSON —I have seen that article in the Age and the estimate of 600,000 would seem to be a reasonable estimate for Japanese tourists by 1995. It is worth noting that the figures for August of this year look like they are almost double those for last August. The figures for August this year have gone up to 20,000. So the number of tourists coming from Japan is rising at a staggering rate. At the moment the growth rate is something like 25 per cent per annum. Given that tourism throughout the rest of the world is pretty static, that is an extraordinary figure. This year we will receive 195,000 Japanese tourists. That figure is up 34 per cent on 1986. So in 1995 there would be a further increase of 300 per cent. Given the numbers that are now rolling in and the amount of time between now and then, it is not unreasonable to expect this result. Of course, the boom in Japanese tourism has been kicked off by this Government. We will do all that we can to continue to facilitate it. Senator Puplick —If you drive the value of the Australian dollar down you will get more of them. Senator RICHARDSON —A proposal which emanated from the other side would have abolished government responsibility altogether for tourism. Such a proposal would have killed off the industry. However, as I said, we will continue to facilitate it. My colleague the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories will be leading a delegation of Australian businessmen to Japan in three weeks time to seek equity in a number of major tourism developments in this country. He will be continuing discussions with the Minister for Transport and Communications and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training on the issue of Japanese signs at airports and, of course, more language courses at schools and colleges around the country. Japanese tourism has the capacity to employ tens of thousands of Australians. Honourable senators probably realise that at present the industry employs 400,000 people. The Government will continue to maximise the opportunities for employment. That is one of the reasons why we have listed the wet tropics rainforest of north Queensland for world heritage listing. We know that that will attract many more Japanese tourists to this country. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 7 October Senator Crichton-Browne asked whether I would ask Australia Post to reconsider its decision not to issue a pre-stamped envelope commemorating the involvement of Australian servicemen in the Vietnam War. I am able to advise him that Australia Post now advises me that it is not possible to reconsider its decision not to commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the beginning of the involvement by Australian servicemen in the Vietnam War in this year's pre-stamped envelope program. This program was finalised in 1985. It is fully committed and no additions can be made at this late stage. Australia Post is still of the opinion that the end of the war is the appropriate point for commemoration. Senator Crichton-Browne will be pleased to learn that the twenty-fifth anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War is already on the list of subjects for possible philatelic commemoration. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —On 7 October 1987, pursuant to the order of the Senate of 16 September 1987, I laid on the table of the Senate certain answers to questions relating to the Parliament House Construction Authority which were asked during the proceedings of Estimates Committee E in April 1987. At that time I undertook to have the remaining answers tabled as soon as they were available. Therefore, pursuant to the order of 16 September, I now lay on the table those answers. Copies of the answers have or are being distributed to the chamber. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 a.m. today, two senators submitted letters in accordance with standing order 64. Senator Tambling proposed a matter of urgency and Senator Vallentine proposed a matter of public importance. To decide which letters should be submitted to the Senate, I determined the matter by ballot in the presence of Senators Tambling and Vallentine and the Clerk of the Senate. In accordance with the result of that procedure, I now read Senator Vallentine's letter: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to standing order 64, I propose that the following mater of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The refusal of the Government to admit that the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap has an offensive role in a nuclear war fighting scenario plus surveillance functions other than monitoring and verification of arms control agreements, and the need for the Government to now give one year's notice of termination to the Government of the United States in accordance with, and in respect of, the Agreement relating to the base. Yours sincerely, (Jo Vallentine) Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.05) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Chaney moving a motion for votes to take place at the end of the discussion of the matter of public importance on the matter of public importance as if it were a statement of urgency in a motion of urgency and on a motion of urgency submitted by Senator Tambling. Mr President, if I may speak at no great length on that motion to suspend Standing Orders: as you have already indicated to the Senate, both the Opposition and Senator Vallentine sought to bring matters before the Senate-the Opposition in the form of an urgency motion and Senator Vallentine in the form of a matter of public importance. Coincidentally, the subject matter of both matters being brought forward was basically the same. Senator Vallentine was expressing the views which you have just read to the Senate. The important element of that is the suggestion that the Government should give one year's notice of termination to the Government of the United States of America in accordance with and in respect of the agreement relating to the Pine Gap joint facility. Of course, the proposition which the Opposition was seeking to put forward was the complete opposite of that. It is the concern of the Opposition that we should not have a debate in this place which reflects an opinion which is not the opinion of the Senate. It would be impossible in the course of a matter of public importance to establish precisely what is the opinion of the Senate. By bringing forward an urgency motion, it is possible to get an expression of the view of the Senate. Given that the matter of public importance and the urgency motion go to matters which are fundamentally important to Australia, namely to the defence of this country, to the maintenance of our alliance with the United States and to the maintenance of joint defence facilities which, in the view of the Opposition, and in the official view of the Government, go the promotion of peace and disarmament, we believe that there should be a clear expression of view by this Senate. For that reason, if the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is carried, I propose to move: That, at the conclusion of the discussion of the matter of public importance, whether or not the time for the discussion has expired, the President shall read to the Senate the following matter of urgency submitted to the President by Senator Tambling: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to express its support for the maintenance of Australia's alliance with the United States and to reaffirm the basis for the operation of the joint defence facilities in Australia in light of recent demonstrations at Pine Gap. and then put the following questions: That the statement of Senator Vallentine's matter of public importance be agreed to. That the motion of urgency submitted by Senator Tambling be agreed to. Mr President, if that procedure is followed, the Senate will have an opportunity to vote and to express a view on the expressions of view which are brought forward by Senator Vallentine and on the motion of urgency which has been submitted by Senator Tambling. We believe that it is important that the Senate should have that opportunity and, hence, this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. We are in a situation where we must consider the fundamental questions of our relationship with the United States and whether we should maintain these bases. Whether one is looking at the view of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, whether one is looking at the views expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or whether one is looking at the views expressed by John Howard on behalf of the Opposition, it is common ground that these facilities are essential to maintaining the capacity of the Western alliance and scrutinising what is happening in the nuclear area. The facilities are an essential part of deterrence as they are an essential part of monitoring any agreements for the reduction of nuclear arms. This matter is very important. One should not underestimate the significance of this debate. There is a fundamental divide between the great mass of Australians who support the cause of peace and nuclear disarmament, but who believe that both peace and nuclear disarmament require in the short and immediate term the maintenance of effective deterrence. They believe that in the longer term the capacity to achieve genuine disarmament and, hence, genuine peace should be on a phased, mutual and verified basis. These are the simple conditions which are supported by the Government, by the Opposition and by the great mass of the people of Australia. A significant minority-certainly significant in terms of the amount of publicity they can attract-advance propositions which we believe are dangerous for Australia and for peace and which we do not believe can pass unchallenged. We believe that some people who are elected to this Parliament-the nuclear disarmament senators and the Australian Democrat senators-are expressing views which we believe are utterly destructive of our national interest. We certainly believe that it is essential that there should be a very clear statement from the Parliament. That need is further compounded by the fact that within the Australian Labor Party there is a significant minority which is agitating for change. In fact, as Senator Tambling will indicate later, supporters of the present Government- members of this Parliament-were part of the agitation at Alice Springs, and were seeking changes which we would classify as attempts to weaken the Western alliance, changes which are clearly contrary to the policies of the Government that they support. It is the wish of the Opposition that there should be no long delay. In moving the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, we do not seek to pre-empt the debate on the matters of substance that are before the Senate. For that reason I do not intend to extend my remarks on this matter, which we regard as fundamental, and to which we seek to achieve the maximum possible positive response from the Government. We think it is very important that it should be clearly understood in the United States, as it should be clearly understood in the Soviet Union-as, indeed, it should be clearly understood in all parts of the world-that we have a clear and definite view as to where the interests of our country lie and where the best hopes for peace and for the security of the world lie. I have moved a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. I believe it will enable the debate to proceed completely in accord with the procedures which would have been followed with respect to the matter of public importance. In other words, the matter of public importance will still be led off by Senator Vallentine. There will be the same number of speakers and a full two hours will be available for the debate. The important difference is that at the end of the debate we will have a clear expression of view from the Senate which will prevent those who hold a unilateralist view from promoting that as being the substantial view of this Parliament. This is a procedural move which is aimed at ensuring that there is no confusion in the community, whether within or outside Australia, about what views are held in this Parliament about where the best interests of Australia lie. I commend this motion to the Senate. I hope that it will be accepted without debate, which would delay the debate on the substantial matters which will be before us: the matter of public importance brought forward by Senator Vallentine and the motion of urgency which will be moved by Senator Tambling. I believe that it is in our national interest that we should follow this procedure. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(3.13) —The Government does not intend to oppose Senator Chaney's motion. I make only one point: I do not think that the substantive motion that will be debated today should be purely determined by a lottery when it is such an important issue. I think both points of view should be put and determined at a later point in the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.13) —I move: That, at the conclusion of the discussion of the matter of public importance, whether or not the time for the discussion has expired, the President shall read to the Senate the following matter of urgency submitted to the President by Senator Tambling: `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to express its support for the maintenance of Australia's alliance with the United States and to reaffirm the basis for the operation of the joint defence facilities in Australia in light of recent demonstrations at Pine Gap.'', and then put the following questions: That the statement of Senator Vallentine's matter of public importance be agreed to. That the motion of urgency submitted by Senator Tambling be agreed to. I do not intend to speak to the motion. I think I have adequately explained, in my speech on the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, the reasoning behind this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders have risen in their places- Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(3.14) —Before I begin my remarks on Pine Gap, I have to challenge Senator Chaney's statement that a significant minority of Australians, other than the Government or the Opposition, hold certain views. There are many Government members who are very embarrassed by their Government's lack of resolve on these questions. I will elaborate on members of the Government later in my remarks. I must also challenge Senator Chaney on his use of the term `unilateralist', which he uses repeatedly. It is totally unfounded and inaccurate, and he knows it. People in the peace movement are arguing for multilateral, verifiable disarmament-just as Senator Chaney is. He will not accept that proposition because he does not want to acknowledge that we are not talking about unilateral disarmament. It would be absolute nonsense to do so. We are talking about mutually verifiable, multilateral disarmament. I want that to be heard by the community in Australia. It is most important that that be understood. What we are doing by challenging the Australian Government's involvement with the United States (US) is saying that we should have some influence with our great friend and ally in areas in which we are meant to have some influence. That is not to say that Australia is not actively involved in multilateral disarmament negotiations at the conference on disarmament in Geneva, and in New York. Pressure must be put on all the super-powers to disarm their nuclear weapons. The peace movement in Australia holds that position very strongly. I totally refute and reject Senator Chaney's allegations that there is an element of unilateralism in what we are suggesting. Pine Gap is a United States spy base. There are three roles which Pine Gap undertakes, only one of which our Government will acknowledge. It acknowledges that Pine Gap is useful in monitoring and verification. That is no doubt a statement with which the Opposition would agree. I remind the Senate that the arms control agreements which Pine Gap is meant to monitor were not even in place when the Pine Gap base was first established in the late 1960s. Arms control agreements such as the SALT agreements and the anti-ballistic missile treaties were not even in place then. They are very much an afterthought, and are benign justifications for this spy base's existence on Australian soil. Pine Gap was established as a spy base to serve the interests of the United States Government. That is its main role. It was its main role in the 1960s, and it remains its main role to this day. So let not that role-the only one that the Government admits to-be used to justify the existence of that base on Australian soil. There are other ways in which we must organise international and independent monitoring and verification of arms control agreements. We have now a situation similar to that of giving the umpire's whistle to the captain of one of the football teams engaged in a game. We are allowing the United States to use Australia soil to do its own monitoring and verification of its so-called enemy. Incidentally, this makes the Soviet Union an Australian enemy as well. There is no need for that situation to have developed. Australia should be engaged in international, independent monitoring of arms control and disarmament agreements. Many proposals have been put forward by countries such as Sweden, Mexico and India which are not directly associated with either of the two super-power blocs and which have offered the technical skills necessary to establish an independent international disarmament monitoring agency. That is what Australia should be doing: it should be working with the countries that are not part of either one super-power bloc or the other. Independent monitoring is the only kind of monitoring that is effective and worth while. It is most important that we look at the two other roles of the Pine Gap facility. It has two very important roles. It is a ground control station for the US signals intelligence satellites. Its first role is to receive and transmit information from satellites, as well as from technological and human operatives in the field. Most significantly, Pine Gap controls the Rhyolite satellites stationed in pairs in geostationary orbits. These Rhyolite satellite systems intercept electronic signals, including national and international telephone and radio communications. They suck up, like a vacuum cleaner, a wide range of communications from throughout the world and beam them back to Pine Gap for transmission to the United States of America. This information includes military, commercial, political and domestic information from both allied and non-allied countries. The information which is sent back to the United States is not controlled by the Australian Government. We have no control over that flow of information; nor do we have any control over the use to which that information is put. This brings me to the second very important role of the Pine Gap facility, a role to which our Government will not admit. The information which is gathered is used to site potential targets in the Soviet Union and wherever else the United States sees fit, not only for the purposes of nuclear war fighting, but also to engage in low intensity conflict, as the United States does in other parts of the world. By intercepting radar signals, the United States is able to map the location of targets, such as the Soviet early warning, air defence, anti-ballistic missile systems, air bases, satellite tracking and control stations, and ships at sea. This information is used to plan attack strategies for fighting nuclear or conventional war. Those roles, the gathering of the information and the use to which that information is put, are in the control of the United States military command. Australia has no control over either the gathering of that information or the use to which that information is put. Those two functions are the main functions of that Pine Gap spy base. It is there to serve the interests of the United States Government and it is not in the interests of the Australian Government and the Australian people to have it there. In fact, in the Prime Minister's speech of 6 June 1984, the Australian Government finally admitted officially what everybody has known for a very long time-that that base and other United States bases on Australian soil are Soviet nuclear targets. That is the first time it was publicly admitted. It is very obvious that, if these bases are used to gather information that is useful to the United States in targeting Soviet nuclear weapons, those bases will be nuclear targets from the Soviet point of view. Our Government has admitted that, but has said that the benefits outweigh the risks. What benefits, for goodness sake, is it talking about? The benefits of being nuclear targets! It is an outrageous statement for the Government to dare to make, but it made it and needs to be challenged on that strongly. Only a couple of weeks ago, Kim Beazley reiterated on ABC radio that the population centres near these bases were very small. It is like saying to the people of Alice Springs, near Pine Gap, to the people of Exmouth, near North West Cape and to the people of Woomera and Port Augusta, near the Nurrungar facility, that they are expendable and do not matter, that their government does not care about their survival and that it is quite prepared to allow them to be direct nuclear targets in the case of an international nuclear exchange. The Australian Government does not care about its own people. How can Senator Chaney get up and say that, in the interests of Australia, we need these bases here? What a load of absolute codswallop. The secrecy surrounding the bases is another major problem. I will quote the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade when he was the Leader of the Opposition in 1981. Mr Hayden and the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Lionel Bowen, went on a grand tour of four of the 11 facilities, all of which are essential to the United States military command in Australia. They went to Pine Gap, Nurrungar, North West Cape and Smithfield. In part, this is what Bill Hayden had to say about the secrecy surrounding the operation of these bases. This is from the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 March 1981: The Opposition Leader, Mr Hayden, called yesterday for a removal of secrecy from Pine Gap, the United States strategic base in central Australia and a public declaration of its function. Hear, hear! I would support him in that call. It is funny that that has not happened since the Labor Party got into government. The article said that, although the then Leader of the Opposition had assurances that Pine Gap was not part of a weapons system-and I will come back to that later-he said that `the general purposes for which these sorts of bases have been established should be declared to the public'. The general purposes for which these bases have been established are the gathering of information and the use of that information for targeting the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons, not monitoring and verification-the establishment of that base had nothing to do with that. The article continues: Mr Hayden put the onus for secrecy squarely on the shoulders of the Australian Government rather than the United States. Again I find myself agreeing with Mr Hayden. The article continues: `There is a pretty clear obsessive preoccupation with secrecy,' he said. `The ground rules for secrecy rest very much with the Australian authorities.' Mr Hayden said that he believed that there was a `strong case' for a revision of secrecy classifications surrounding Pine Gap. That is very interesting stuff from Mr Hayden when Leader of the Opposition. It is a pity that he has not followed it through. On 9 March 1977, still when he was Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden asked the Prime Minister, in a question upon notice, whether it was a fact that under the UKUSA agreement, the National Security Agency operated electronic intercept stations in Australia. Mr Fraser replied: The policy of Australian governments has been not to provide information that might confirm or deny speculation about this subject. This remains the policy. I therefore do not propose to answer the honourable member's question. Earlier this year, just to test out our Government, which prides itself on being much more open than former conservative governments, I asked exactly the same question in this place of the present Government. Do you know what? Surprise, surprise, I got exactly the same answer-in other words, `we are not going to tell you anything'. That is a deplorable situation. Further to that, I must remind the Senate and the people of Australia that answers to parliamentary questions on the subject of United States bases in Australia have been dealt with in the most insulting way recently. Questions that I have asked about North West Cape or Pine Gap or questions that Senator Coulter has asked about Nurrungar have been replied to in the most insulting terms, quoting the Prime Minister's statement of 6 June 1984 which told us absolutely nothing that was not generally known except that the bases were a nuclear target-the first official confirmation of that fact. We have to take Mr Hayden to task and remind him of his concern about the secrecy surrounding these bases, which still exists. Not only has Kim Beazley talked about the people of Alice Springs, North West Cape and Woomera being expendable-they happen to be nuclear targets-but the Government has no civil defence plans in place in case nuclear weapons do start to fly. I believe that the Defence Department is working on such civil defence plans, but what a waste of energy that is. The best way to protect the people of Alice Springs, Exmouth and Woomera, and the people of the world, is to make sure that nuclear weapons are dismantled, East and West. That is what the peace movement in Australia is calling for. We are not interested in this ridiculous nonsense about serving the interests of Australia by having such bases on Australian soil, or even serving the interests of the Western alliance. We need to think beyond that kind of bloc mentality. If we continue to think in terms of East versus West, sooner or later those nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction will be used by accident, if not by design. We must work very hard to get rid of those weapons. That is the agenda of the peace movement in Australia. I believe that our Government is allowing Australian soil to be used in the most immoral way, by one super-power plotting and planning against the other. It is immoral that we allow our soil to be used for these purposes. I want now to talk about the Nuremberg principles, which were invoked by the people who conducted a peaceful week of educational and process activities in the vicinity of Pine Gap. The Nuremberg principles were successfully invoked and I would like to remind the Senate about the sixth principle, which clearly lists crimes punishable under international law. They are crimes against peace, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of war of aggression. I am shortening this so that I can get to the notice of eviction in the next few minutes. The principle includes the participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts just mentioned. That is exactly what the Australian Government is involved in-the participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of the planning and preparation for the waging of war. That is what that base at Pine Gap is all about. It goes on further to list war crimes and crimes against humanity. There could be no greater crime against humanity than the potential use of nuclear weapons against human beings, and these nuclear weapons are targeted indiscriminately at people in the Soviet Union through the information collected and beamed back to the United States through that base at Pine Gap. It is outrageous that the Government then has the gall to tell us that the benefits of our involvement with this alliance outweigh the risk. The risk to humanity is total. The second Nuremberg principle, which was successfully invoked by people at the peaceful and non-violent week of action in Alice Springs and Pine Gap, was principle No. 4. This relates to the notion of individual responsibility. These Nuremberg principles arose out of the war crimes tribunals after the Second World War when nazi criminals tried to plead an abdication of individual responsibility in sending millions of Jews to the extermination camps. They said, `We were merely following orders'. That line of defence was shown to be totally inadequate and morally unjustified. Under principle 4, individuals are obliged to act if they see that their Government is engaged in activities which are against the common good or engaged in crimes punishable under international law-the crimes that I have just listed such as conspiring with, planning or participating in the common plan to wage war against humanity. Seeing that our Government is allowing Australian soil to be used for such diabolical and immoral acts, many Australians have considered that they have a moral obligation to break domestic law, the law of trespass against the Commonwealth of Australia on land which should be available to all Australians. That base should not be there under any circumstances whatsoever. It is serving no Australian purpose and, I believe, no purpose for world peace either. Many people were prepared to go to the gates of Pine Gap. We were denied access to the commanding officer of the base. We wanted to deliver a notice of eviction which will be circulated to all members of parliament in the next day or two, so that they will all be able to have a good look at it. It was directed to the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia by people of Australia. I know that there has been some criticism that we cannot be said to be speaking for all people of Australia, and that is true; but we are speaking for hundreds of thousands of Australians who feel that it is immoral for the Australian Government to allow Australian soil to be used by the United States Government to target citizens in the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons. So people decided that they would be prepared to commit civil disobedience when they were denied access to that facility to present their notice of eviction. I seek leave to incorporate the notice of eviction, which is a couple of pages long, in Hansard. Leave granted. The notice of eviction read as follows- On behalf of the People of Australia we hereby order you to quit this place following the expiry on this day of one year's notice given on the nineteenth of October 1986 pursuant to the Agreement dated the nineteenth of October 1977 between the governments of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Australia: That whereas, The land comprising the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap and its neighbourhood has been declared a Prohibited Area under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952, thus depriving the traditional Aboriginal owners and custodians of this land of their rights pertaining to their ownership, use and enjoyment of this land, and preventing them from carrying out their customary obligations to maintain and conserve this land, and preserve the welfare of the traditional owners and custodians, their families and all people who enter this land; And whereas, The declaration of Pine Gap and its neighbourhood as a Prohibited Area has deprived us, the Australian People, of our legal rights to use and enjoy this land, and has infringed our civil liberties by imposing harsh and oppressive restrictions on our freedom of movement, action and speech on this land; And whereas, The presence of this Facility has exposed the residents of the town of Alice Springs and its environs to the imminent threat of nuclear attack, as acknowledged by the Australian, United States and Soviet Union governments, and that such an attack would result in the immediate death of hundreds, and the lingering death of thousands, of Alice Springs residents; And whereas, The involvement of the Pine Gap Facility in spying on internal Australian electromagnetic communications, the refusal of the United States government to divulge the actual role and extent of Pine Gap's operations, and the complicity of the Australian government in maintaining the extreme secrecy of the Facility, have resulted in the deception of the Australian People; And whereas, The use of the Pine Gap Facility to spy on Australia, nations in the Pacific region and other countries, and to prepare for nuclear war between foreign powers to be conducted on Australian soil, constitutes a serious breach of the sovereignty and independence of this nation and of neighbouring states; And whereas, The facility at Pine Gap is used to support the destabilising and warfighting foreign policies of the government of the United States of America which have directly caused the further escalation of the nuclear arms race, the growth of hostility between the superpowers and the increased probability of the outbreak of nuclear war; And that whereas. For the above and other reasons, the presence of the Facility at Pine Gap threatens the liberty, peace and survival of the Aboriginal owners and custodians of this land, the residents of Alice Springs, the People of Australia and world humanity; We, the people of Australia, hereby serve this Notice of Eviction on the governments of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Australia, in consequence of which the government of the United States of America will be required to quit this place forthwith; And that forthwith. All United States and Australian personnel are required to cease working in, and to quit, Pine Gap and its neighbourhood, including all employees of the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, the Australian Protective Service and other United States or Australian government security, intelligence, military or defence agencies, and including all employees of private companies contracted by the United States or Australian governments to provide technical, administrative, support or other services to the operations of the Facility; And that forthwith. The governments of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Australia are required to remove from Pine Gap all United States and Australian government property relating to Signals Intelligence, Communications Intelligence, Electronic Intelligence and any other operations carried out at the Facility, and including all electronic, telemetric, electrical and mechanical equipment, all buildings and facilities used to accommodate, operate, service and maintain equipment and personnel, all computers, all antennae, all radomes, all security devices, all gates and all fences. And that forthwith. The governments of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Australia close Pine Gap. Signed on behalf of the People of Australia, on the this eighteenth day of October 1987. HAROLD FERBER HELEN LIDDLE JOE FERGUSON HELEN CALDICOTT RICHARD BOLT JOAN GASKELL JO VALLENTINE KAREN FLICK JEAN JENKINS JOHN RUMBLE Senator VALLENTINE —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I believe that we should turn to the notions that the United States Government actually has about its flexible options. As I was preparing to talk about these flexible options, finally delineated carefully by President Carter in Presidential Decision No. 59 in 1979, I found Mr Hayden speaking very clearly about this matter, so I thought I would quote Mr Hayden. Rather than have it in my words, we can have it in his. In a speech that he made to the National Press Club on 14 April 1981, he stated: This process culminated in Presidential Decision No. 59, signed by President Carter nine months ago. This decision, and associated planning documents, encompasses a most elaborate framework of strategic options, ranging from very limited nuclear strikes, through counterforce strikes, to full-scale nuclear war. At the heart of the new strategy is the belief that technology allows nuclear war to be managed like any other, to be graduated and manipulated. Most of all, it contemplates victory. It is a strategy that reverts to the frightening belief that nuclear weapons are just like any other weapons, to be used as instruments of policy, as and when necessary. These elaborate scenarios, with their flawed view that wars are winnable if the right nuclear weapons are at hand, means that the arms race is wide open to the newest and the latest. In reality, what is happening is that political leaders are rapidly being pressured into succumbing to these economic, military-and about all-technological forces which have taken charge of events. They are the words of the present Foreign Minister, Bill Hayden, going back to 1981. What he said was absolutely correct. When we consider the flexible options that are open to the United States military command and, no doubt, the equivalent open to the planners in the Kremlin-I am not wanting to suggest that there is any lack of criticism of their options either, but we happen to be associated much more closely with the American system-we need to look at the weapons systems which have been developed by the United States. The Trident II weapons systems will be on line next year. Orders to use the Trident II weapons systems and the MX missile systems could be passed through the base at North West Cape. They are not deterrent weapons systems. The degree of accuracy which they employ is necessary for only one purpose and that is a first strike purpose. Again, to quote Bill Hayden, he has said repeatedly that if the bases on Australian soil could be seen to have any first strike application, we would have to review our commitment to them. That time is almost upon us. When these first strike weapons systems are available to the United States we would be helping the United States in its use of those first strike weapons systems. So it is high time that the Australian Government did review the operations of these United States bases on Australian soil, that there was a public and open inquiry into those bases on Australian soil-a call which has been supported by three members of the Labor Party itself-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.34) —There is no doubt that Senator Vallentine could be described as well intentioned and sincere, but I would also have to add the adjective `naive'. We do not happen to share the same world view. We might want the same end, but the road to that end we see as entirely different. Therefore, much of these debates tends to be sterile. I want to take up the first point. Senator Vallentine is very clever in the way she described the support in Australia for the proposition she put up today. She talked of many people being at Pine Gap and Alice Springs. Yes, there were 600 to 1,000 people, compared with another 16 million people doing other things. Senator Sanders —That is a lot more than voted for you at the last election. Senator ROBERT RAY —I am a disciplined party man. All my supporters voted according to the ticket. They do not spray around as erratically as Senator Sanders. Senator Sanders has raised the question of votes. Let us look at that. There were really three categories of people who voted in the last Senate election-those who voted for a party which identifies readily with and is supportive of the American alliance; those who voted for candidates who are clearly opposed to the joint facilities and an American alliance; and those who voted for candidates whose attitude to that proposal I cannot identify. Looking at the Senate results and talking about mandates, or whatever else, 7,990,329 people voted for parties espousing support for the American alliance whereas 961,339 voted for parties opposed to the American alliance. Unless Senator Sanders wants to impose on us a democratic system somewhat akin to that of Queensland, it is quite clear that there was a massive mandate. Something like 89.3 per cent of Australians voted in the Senate election for parties in support of the American alliance. So that there is absolutely no doubt about the Australian Labor Party (ALP) policy, I will read from the 1986 platform, for the second time today, exactly what the official Labor Party policy is. I will then go on and outline the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 6 June 1984 to the House of Representatives and, finally, I will deal with whether these facilities are leased or in what way we have a connection with them. Firstly, I take honourable senators to page 610. It is headed `D, Joint Defence Facilities'. Paragraph 30 states: The joint facilities in Australia make an important contribution to effective deterrence and the avoidance of conflict, and have helped materially to make possible the progress which has been made in the past towards arms control and disarmament by enabling- (a) surveillance for the verification of treaties, agreements and understandings on disarmament and arms control; and (b) provision of early warning of threats to allies. 31 While recognising that the major joint facilities may themselves constitute nuclear targets, their continuing presence contributes an essential element to a stable global nuclear balance, and without the capacity for surveillance and early warning which they and similar facilities provide, further progress towards arms control and disarmament will be jeopardised rather than enhanced. The joint facilities may therefore remain so long as they continue to fulfil these functions. Labor will- 32 Require that control over the management of all defence and defence-related facilities and installations in Australia be either held exclusively by Australia or shared in such a way that Australian concurrence is required in management decisions. 33 Require that the operations of these facilities and installations are conducted only with the government's full knowledge and concurrence; and in particular that the facilities will not be operated so as to support the use of armed force except with the specific prior agreement of the government. 34 Require that agreements relating to the establishment or operation in Australia of joint defence facilities shall have non-terminable periods no longer than ten years. 35 Ensure that Australian personnel with appropriate skills are fully involved in all aspects of the operations of all defence and defence-related facilities and that Australian personnel with parliamentary or other official responsibilities that involve the facilities have access to them. 36 Require that the general purpose and functions of each of the facilities shall be made known to the Australian public, together with such additional details about the operations conducted there as can be provided without detriment to the effectiveness of those operations. 37 Require that the government has access to all information derived from the operations of those facilities, and that it is advised of the purposes to which the information is put by the other government or governments involved. 38 Ensure that the facilities are not used to collect information in Australia and are operated in accordance with Australia's concern to avoid actions detrimental to the interests of friendly countries. Senator Schacht, who is sitting behind me, was one of the authors of that document. He would also be able to tell us, when people make reference to the fact that perhaps a minority in my own Party do not fully support that policy, that at the Party's last national conference that policy went through without a division, a vote or a count being held. The rather graphic debates that the Labor Party may have had in the 1960s and 1970s and almost into the early 1980s have disappeared, and there is virtually no consistent fighting in the Labor Party about that policy. That is a policy which we took to the people in 1983, 1984 and 1987. We did not try to hide our policy and we were supported in it. The coalition did not try to hide its policy either. I repeat that 89 per cent of Senate voters responded to our policy. The Prime Minister's statement on 6 June 1984 and the defence White Paper of March 1987 set out in greater detail than had any previous Government the general purpose of the facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. The Prime Minister in his statement said that the joint facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar contribute to arms control, verification and early warning, as well as to the effective deterrence of war. As the Prime Minister has said, all functions and activities require, and have, the full knowledge and concurrence of the Australian Government. We monitor them closely and are satisfied that the operations of the facilities in no way derogate from our sovereignty, nor are the facilities operated against our national interests. The Government will neither confirm nor deny that the facilities are used for any particular purpose beyond those referred to by the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament on 6 June 1984, other than to state flatly and clearly that they are not used to spy against this country. The Government does not accept a characterisation of United States strategic policy in terms of offensive first strike or nuclear war fighting. United States leaders, including President Reagan and Secretary of Defense Weinberger, have emphasised repeatedly that the US strategy is defensive and that a pre-emptive or first strike by the US has been ruled out. More generally, the Government does not believe that either super-power could contemplate a successful first strike against the other. Acquisition of the theoretical first strike capability would require the ability to attack simultaneously all targets, including hardened missile silos, with sufficient reliability, accuracy, survivability, penetrability and destructive power to provide nearly 100 per cent certainty that they would be destroyed. It would also require confidence in achieving complete surprise and the ability to destroy the other side's means of retaliating, including retaliation with bombers, mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles and the difficult-to-detect strategic ballistic missile submarines. It is most unlikely that these conditions could be satisfied in the foreseeable future by either super-power. The terms of our agreement with the United States governing the operation of the joint defence facilities at Pine Gap provide that, as of 19 October 1987, either party to the agreement may terminate the agreement by giving one year's notice in writing. In the absence of such action, the agreement continues in force and there is no requirement for it to be renegotiated or amended. As the Prime Minister made clear in June 1984 in his comprehensive statement to the House on the role and functions of the joint defence facilities, and as the Government also made clear in its policy information paper on the defence of Australia, tabled in the House on 19 March 1987, the joint facility at Pine Gap serves Australian as well as US interests. More particularly, the contribution of the joint defence facilities to world stability is obviously of direct and immediate benefit to our prospects for a peaceful existence. Were Australia to cease our co-operation in the joint defence facilities, there would only be adverse consequences for international security and a higher risk of global war. This would serve neither Australia's interests nor those of the international community generally. For these reasons, the Government does not propose to terminate our joint defence agreement with the United States. I want to move to a specific issue, and that is the question of serving an eviction notice, leases, et cetera. None of the facilities is subject to a lease which requires renewal. Rather, each is the subject of an agreement which provides for a non-terminable period. When the non-terminable period expires the agreement continues in force unless either side gives due notice of termination, in which case the agreement terminates at the completion of the notice period. One year's notice is required for Pine Gap and Nurrungar, and, as of 1 January 1988, six months notice could be given for North West Cape. In conclusion, I would like to make the point I made at the start of my remarks. I happen to have a different world view from that of Senator Vallentine and probably most of the Australian Democrats in this chamber. Senator Sanders —You have your head in the sand, that is why. Senator ROBERT RAY —I can just imagine my friend and colleague Senator Sanders, whom I often describe as naive, as being one of those who, like Sydney and Beatrice Webb, went to the Soviet Union in the middle of the 1930s and came back and wrote glowing accounts of how wonderful life was in the fatherland while five or six million people were being trucked into Siberia. That is the naive approach which Senators Sanders takes. It has been stressed on many occasions that a peaceful existence in this world and nuclear disarmament will not be brought about by a quick fix and good intention only. It is all to do with extremely hard work at the coal face, which is something that Senator Sanders is not used to. It requires detailed hard work. That is not to berate in any way those who have passionate feelings on this question such as Senator Vallentine. I do not doubt her sincerity or her intentions. I do say that her world view is wrong and is warped. I can just imagine the allies of the Soviet Union sitting around in the great parliaments of Eastern Europe debating these matters! Quite often the satellites of the Soviet Union visit our country. They always talk about peace, but the moment we suggest that they should break their alliance with the Soviet Union, there is a total communication blackout and no further comment on that subject. It is the Government's intention, when there is a vote later this afternoon, to vote against Senator Vallentine's motion and to support the motion to be moved by Senator Tambling. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(3.48) —Pine Gap is in the electorate that is served by Senator Collins and me. This is an issue on which, I am sure, we have a lot in common. I am pleased to accept the assurances just given by Senator Ray with regard to the continuation of the Pine Gap facility. The issues that Pine Gap pose in confronting the residents of the Northern Territory, and in fact all Australians, have been highlighted by the irresponsible, irrational and illegal activities of over 600 migratory demonstrators in Alice Springs this last weekend. Very few, in fact only a handful, were local Territorians. Over 200 of those migratory demonstrators were arrested by police for taking stupid actions beyond the bounds of reasonable protest. So much for Senator Vallentine's statement about peaceful and controlled demonstrations. One has only to look at the Press of the last few days to take that point further. The reason that my motion will be put forward this afternoon is that Australia's international reputation is being tarnished by a few nitwits. In looking at the presence in Australia of the joint defence-related facilities, such as those at Pine Gap, it is important to go back to basics. In the long and often very emotive debate about these facilities that has gone on in Australia for 20-odd years, it has been easy for people on either side of the argument to lose sight of the very fundamental issue, and that issue is the preservation of the peace of the world. The proliferation since 1945 of nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China has increased the cost of any future global war to a prohibitive level. Quite simply, we as a race can no longer afford the price of world war because that now means world nuclear war. The policy of the Opposition for years has been that such a war must be prevented. The question has been: how to achieve this goal without sacrificing essential national security interests. Whilst it might upset some people to be reminded of this matter, it is true that the Western community of nations has seen an aggressive and often brutal Soviet Union gobble up half of Europe and keep it under heel with naked force. Examples are Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 and, more recently, the invasion of Afghanistan. So how to preserve peace without handing the world over to the Soviets has been the problem. The only answer that has worked so far has been the policy of mutual deterrence between the super-powers. The arsenals of each side are such that the Soviets are deterred from embarking on any campaign of massive conquest. On balance, the Soviets need not fear that the Americans will attack them or their vital interests. The policy of mutual deterrence has been criticised on various grounds. The most common is that it keeps the people of the world under the constant threat of nuclear war. This is true; but however unpalatable it might be, the fact remains that world peace has been secured by the deterrence policy. No other alternative is available at present which is generally agreed to work as well as deterrence. We must support deterrence for one very simple reason: it works, and nothing else has been devised that works. The facilities in Australia are part of the system of deterrence. To remove them would weaken deterrence. Therefore, they must stay and our arguments, therefore, are based on logic. We need deterrence to work if we are to keep the threat of nuclear conflict at bay. The joint facilities support deterrence. Therefore they should remain. In fact, it is thoroughly irresponsible to argue otherwise. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the editorial which appeared in yesterday's Australian. I quote: The joint defence facilities are an integral part of the US-Australia relationship. Those political parties and candidates who would have the bases removed have never won a majority in any House of any Australian parliament, nor indeed anything like a majority. The three principal Australian political parties-Labor, Liberal and National-all support the joint facilities. Further on it says: The majority of Australians support the presence of the joint facilities for good reasons. They make an important contribution to the process of arms control through their role in technical verification of Soviet compliance with arms control agreements. Let us look at some of the policies at which those opposed to the bases occasionally have us look. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the 1987 election policy statement of the Australian Democrats. I take two points out of that. The first is, `No nuclear weapons in Australia' and the second is, `Removal of any foreign bases that contribute to nuclear war'. This is the policy of a party that knows it will never have the problem of governing. It is a policy of a losers party. Senator Sanders —Will you? Senator TAMBLING —It is a party that sits on the sideline and snipes, just as Colonel Sanders is doing. Perhaps he should look carefully at this. Point one-`No nuclear weapons in Australia'-is a fine-sounding sentiment. But it means an end to the alliance between Australia and America. It is an attempt to do what New Zealand has done-destroy the alliance. Point two-`Removal of any foreign bases that contribute to nuclear war'-sounds very fine. But if that point is applied to Australia it contains not one, but two, separate fallacies-or, in plain English, lies. The first is the suggestion that there are foreign bases in Australia. There are not. What the Democrats call foreign bases are neither bases nor foreign; they are joint facilities. The second fallacy is that the joint facilities contribute to nuclear war. They do not. They help support deterrence and help keep nuclear war a threat rather than a reality. Perhaps some of my friends in the chamber should take note of the comments of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, in a 1984 booklet entitled `Uranium, the Joint Facilities, Disarmament and Peace'. He said: There will be no arms control agreement between the superpowers unless each side is reasonably confident the other cannot cheat on that agreement. That is a fact of life. Both superpowers are deeply suspicious of each other. Both insist on effective monitoring and verification of any treaty on arms control into which they enter. Further on, he said: It is highly unlikely that some major arms control agreements between the superpowers would have been concluded if there had been no Pine Gap or Nurrungar. If we were to abolish Pine Gap or Nurrungar, we would be seriously damaging the prospect of agreements on the limitations of nuclear arms between the superpowers. The sad reality, which the Democrats and others, such as Senator Vallentine, cannot accept, is that Mr Hayden, on this matter, is absolutely correct. The facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar are needed if future arms limitations are to work. This takes us to the position where avoidance of nuclear war is vital. I have already shown that the primary purpose of the facilities is to support deterrence and avoid nuclear war. So the risk of the attack on the facilities logically must be equal to or less than the risk of nuclear war. If we actively support deterrence, through the facilities, there will be no war and no attack on Australia. Senator Sanders —It will be particularly amusing when it hits. Senator TAMBLING —I find it particularly amusing that people such as Senator Sanders get excited about intelligence agencies being involved. The facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar are involved in intelligence. Who did the Democrats think would be involved-a department of agriculture? Intelligence facilities naturally involve intelligence agencies. This is not a conspiracy; it is common sense. We in Australia retain access and control. That is the important point. I want now to bring my attention to the activities of certain people this weekend in Alice Springs, because a number of politicians have taken up the cudgels and joined the demonstrators. In particular, I draw the Senate's attention to Senator Vallentine, Senator Wood and Senator Jenkins and to members of the House of Representatives, Mr Snowdon, Mr Milton, Mr Tickner and Mr Scott. They were there seeking the termination of the agreement with the United States. Senator Vallentine got herself arrested. We should remind ourselves about Senator Vallentine. The proposals she was advocating today destroy the means of verification. She was out there valiantly breaking down the barriers-but on behalf of whom? With the percentage of the vote of the Australian community for nuclear disarmament that she and Senator Wood enjoy, I really wonder who is being offensive and who are the war fighters? These are words versus action. I believe that Senator Vallentine really has become subversive and antisocial, particularly as a member of parliament. Senator Wood had to fly to Ayers Rock to get to Alice Springs. I hope he enjoyed the tourist trip back along the MacDonnell Ranges. I hope he looked at and took in the seven domes of Pine Gap and that he came back and reported to Snow White, Senator Vallentine, that there were really 700 dwarfs out there as well, joining them on the barricades. I will be very interested to hear later the contribution of Senator Jenkins from the lost tribe of the Democrats and the peaceniks. Her comments have been irrational and emotional and she uses scare tactics. What of my mate, Comrade Snowdon, from the Northern Territory, who went on this trip? It is very interesting to hear comments he made on a broadcast on Monday. He said: I went out there as part of the rally to demonstrate my solidarity with those people who concerned in peace and disarmament issues. He was asked: Do you still want Pine Gap closed? His answer was: Well I think there is an argument . . . The Northern Territory ALP policy is to close the base or at least have it closed down in some future time. He was pushed further about the same issue. Mr Snowdon said: I put the motions in the ALP that I didn't believe the base should continue . . . That's not to say however that I won't seek or may not seek the change of policy in the future. What about Comrade Milton, our friend who walks out of the Parliament when we get into the tough times of the uranium debate, Comrade Tickner, an activist-I refer to his involvement with citizens for democracy and nuclear free zones-and Comrade Scott? It is very interesting to see what they were reported in the Age last week as saying. These four brave comrades pushing their ideologies must be giving Hawke and Senator Evans a real pain in the neck. What will happen at Labor's next conference? These lefties are creating tensions in the ALP. They are trying to shame their colleagues in government into accepting changed policies and are calling for the non-renewal of Pine Gap leases. But what about the costs to the community of this demonstration? These are the important things. What about the damage to property? The demonstrators destroyed fences, damaged Pine Gap cameras and desecrated road signs through all of the southern part of the Northern Territory. That is disgusting. I would call them peace vandals. There were costs to the community as 15 extra police had to be called in as a task force and 15 others were rostered on and brought 200 people before the courts. Additional magistrates were needed. The Australian Federal Police had to come in and extra solicitors had to come in. What will be legal aid, social security and health consequences? Senator Jenkins tackled me the other day because I called into question who was funding the demonstrations in the Northern Territory. This needs to be looked at because it is admitted that 137 members are involved in this anti-bases campaign coalition. We need to review those groups to see whether they are getting funds from the Federal Government, the State governments, foreign interests, or perhaps, as has been suggested this weekend in the Northern Territory, from the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF). One of the stories around Alice Springs is that the local peace groups were threatened that funding for the program and for the buses would be withdrawn if the demonstrators did not get out there and give the local coppers a hard time. Lovely stuff! Honourable senators know the saying that all is fair in love and war. Put the peaceniks and the BLF together and that is what we get: love and war. We advocate peace through strength. We need a reasonable defence capacity supported by alliances with the United States. Pine Gap is in our interests and it is in the interests of the free world. We should not, like the demonstrators, penalise our own country and leave ourselves naked. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(4.03) —Mr Acting Deputy President, before I speak on the matter of public importance, as there will be a vote at the end of this debate on the matter of public importance and on the urgency motion put forward by Senator Tambling, I wish to move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me moving the following amendment to the matter of urgency submitted by Senator Tambling: Leave out the word `defence'. The Australian Democrats want to move that amendment to Senator Tambling's matter of urgency. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Are you moving for a suspension of Standing Orders now? Senator JENKINS —Can I move for a suspension of Standing Orders now so that we can add an amendment before I speak? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You may move it and speak to the moving of it. Senator MacGibbon —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. The debate is in progress. It is not permissible for the speaker to adjourn the debate while she moves this motion and then have her 15 minutes of speaking time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The honourable senator is correct. Senator Jenkins has a certain amount of time. She may move for the suspension of Standing Orders but that time will be taken into account in her 15 minutes. If she wishes to move for the suspension of Standing Orders she may test the waters straightaway. Senator JENKINS —I will do so at the end of my speech. The matter of public importance raised by Senator Vallentine has the full support of the Australian Democrats. Indeed, there are currently seven anti-nuclear Bills on the Notice Paper which have been introduced by the Australian Democrats. One of these is the Foreign Bases (Pine Gap Base) Removal Bill 1987. Two others prohibit the export of uranium, notably to France, three prohibit the passage of nuclear powered and/or nuclear weapon bearing ships, and one prohibits the passage of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons through Australian airspace. It is scandalous that, just as originally in the case of the Australia Card Bill the Government was not telling us the whole truth, the Government is not telling the whole truth about Pine Gap. Successive Australian governments have provided little but lies and disinformation about Pine Gap and the other bases and have allowed Australia to become entangled in a dangerous nuclear web. Pine Gap is certainly not a joint or a defence space research facility. The facility at Pine Gap is there as a part of the United States of America's offensive role in a nuclear war fighting scenario. It is publicly stated by the Government that the function of Pine Gap is the monitoring and verification of arms control agreements; that is, of verifying Soviet compliance with the SALT treaties and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. This is very strange, as when the Pine Gap treaty was first signed in 1966 these treaties did not exist. In 1978 ex-Prime Minister Gorton stated that he had never known what Pine Gap was about and he added that he did not think to ask about it. In 1977 Mr Whitlam told the Australian Parliament that he had been unaware that Pine Gap was in fact a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) installation. Mr Whitlam had not known that the United States officer in charge of Pine Gap was an employee of the CIA and that information obtained by Pine Gap was available to private United States companies. From the statement of the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in June 1984, it appears that he remains just as ignorant. Warwick Beutler, commenting on Mr Hawke's statement, said: Those looking to the Government to provide detailed new information on the function of the bases would be sadly disappointed by today's statement. Despite Mr Hawke's insistence that it was an exhaustive statement of functions which excluded nothing as to the role of the bases, the suspicion will remain within the ALP especially that the Government is somehow hiding something when it won't reveal- Senator Vanstone —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 406, which states: No Senator shall read his speech. Mr Acting Deputy President, I invite you to cast your eyes towards the honourable senator, who appears to be reading her speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have noticed that the honourable senator is using copious notes. I ask her to continue. Senator JENKINS —At the moment I am reading what Mr Warwick Beutler said. He continued: . . . the Government is somehow hiding something when it won't reveal the technical functions of the facilities. In fact, since the late 1970s, information on the role of the bases in nuclear war fighting plans and global espionage has come to light for the most part from United States sources. The nuclear dimension of the bases is acknowledged by the Australian Government when it claims that it supports nuclear deterrence when nuclear weapons would be used in response to a Soviet first strike. However, current United States policy is to use nuclear weapons in an attempt to prevail over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in the event of war. As I have already mentioned, the Government also claims that the bases are vital to the verification of arms control agreements which are said to promote peace and stability. However, after a three-year inquiry a report which was tabled by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in Federal Parliament in 1986 titled Disarmament and Arms Control in the Nuclear Age found that the bases' role in verifications had been used to deflect attention from their more offensive functions. The findings of the report seriously weaken the Australian Government's rationale for the bases existence, especially as it found merit in the concept of an independent and international verification agency. It is indeed unfortunate that the Government has not responded to this report. Verification includes monitoring the military activities of other nations to verify whether or not they are complying with arms control agreements that they have signed, albeit that these agreements were signed after the setting up of Pine Gap. Having the United States alone as the monitoring agency as well as being one of the major protagonists is like having the captain of one of the teams also acting as the umpire. Like North West Cape and Nurrungar, Pine Gap has several military functions. It can assess military developments, including troop movements and levels of military alert in the Soviet Union by intercepting Soviet military communications. It can locate-- Senator Walters —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I do not think by the greatest stretch of imagination Senator Jenkins could claim that she is reading from copious notes. I think she is reading her speech. Senator JENKINS —I believe I have no more notes than Senator Tambling. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Because of the previous point of order I have been watching Senator Jenkins carefully. I will continue to do so for the next eight minutes. Senator JENKINS —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Pine Gap also supports the Pentagon doctrine of low intensity conflict, or LIC, whereby the Unites States seeks to destabilise Third World nations by supporting guerrilla movements, as it has done in Nicaragua, for example. Pine Gap's role in LIC would be to gather intelligence on a nation's military activities for the use of United States advisers assisting such guerrilla groups. Kampuchea, Angola and Afghanistan are regions where Pine Gap's intelligence may well be playing a role. Last week in Alice Springs there were both educational seminars and workshops and non-violent demonstrations and protestations organised by the Alice Springs Peace Group and the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition. Were Senator Tambling here I would put it to him that the people who protested then were just like the people who protested against the Australia Card: they believed in what they were doing, they believed they were doing the right thing. For the life of me, I cannot understand why it is all right to protest against the Australia Card but it is not all right to protest against American bases in Australia. During the demonstration on Sunday I was privileged to take part in the reading of the Nuremberg principles, which evoke the principles of personal and moral responsibility concerning crimes against humanity. As has already been stated by Senator Vallentine, in the Nuremberg trials held after World War II the defence of obeying legal orders was regarded as no defence when the person involved understood the implications and had a moral choice. Those who believe that the presence of the bases, including Pine Gap, make Australia a nuclear target and make us an active part of the deadly global nuclear game have no option other than to speak up about it, whether in a demonstration, a rally or even here in the Parliament. Earlier this year another significant action took place. It was a prelude to the events of the past week at Pine Gap. On Palm Sunday weekend, 11 and 12 April, following the introduction of the Australian Democrats anti-bases Bill in the Senate, the Democrats party Leader, Senator Janine Haines, with Victorian Senator Janet Powell, took the Bill to Pine Gap. They marched through the streets with Alice Springs people and then a cavalcade of cars took over 100 people out to Pine Gap where Senator Haines presented the Bill to guards at the gates, signalling the Democrats' intentions to pursue the issue, to work towards ridding Australia of US bases which make us a nuclear target. I put it to honourable senators that we have only one of two options: either Pine Gap must go or, if the claim by the Government that Pine Gap has no war fighting role to play but is concerned solely with verification is true, there is an obvious solution-turn the base over to an international monitoring body, perhaps associated with the United Nations. Let all the people of the world benefit from the technological expertise which the Government says is concerned with the maintenance of peace. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Do you wish to move for suspension of Standing Orders? Senator JENKINS —Not now, thank you. Senator Bishop —Mr Acting Deputy President, under standing order 364 I ask that the documents from which Senator Jenkins was quoting during her speech be tabled. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Jenkins, are you prepared to table the documents? Senator Jenkins —Sure, yes. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(4.15) —I am very glad to see that Senator Vallentine has returned to the chamber to listen to the remainder of this debate. I was getting a bit worried: I thought the emotional scars inflicted by the Alice Springs watch-house must have gone too deep and she had abandoned us. I am glad she has come back to listen to at least part of the debate. I agree with much of what Senator Vallentine had to say. I have no doubt that most honourable senators, unless they are stark staring crazy, would also agree. The human race is a very strange group of animals indeed. One gets to the point of despair often, when one considers the capacity of the human race for achievement and for creation of art, culture, music and literature and the capacity of the human race for compassion, that it also has the most extraordinary capacity to have equipped itself in the last 40 years with weapons that are capable of destroying the entire human race that created those weapons, and everything else along with it. Were I to believe for one second that unilateral disarmament would assist in some way in setting an example to other powers to get rid of all their nuclear weapons, I would be on the barricades with Senator Vallentine as well. The great difficulty with what she said is that she gave lip service to saying that she did not agree with unilateral disarmament and that she was interested in multilateral and-I stress-verifiable disarmament and she then went on for the next 15 minutes to make a whole string of statements that flatly contradicted what she had said. I take up in particular one statement which typifies many of the contributions to the debate when, talking about nuclear weapons generally, she said, `These weapons are aimed indiscriminately against the innocent people of the Soviet Union'. It infuriates me that many of the contributors to the debate on nuclear weapons carry on as if the nuclear policies and armaments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics simply did not exist. Senator Powell —We don't want to be the target. Senator COLLINS —I refer Senator Powell to Hansard. I keep very accurate notes of what people say and that is what was said. The bases at Pine Gap and Nurrungar are without question the two most important joint facilities in Australia. Pine Gap in particular performs the essential role of being the eyes and ears of Australia and the United States in the Indian Ocean, South East Asia, south Asia, China and the southern portion of the USSR. That is particularly important because it is the southern portion of the USSR where most of the Soviet nuclear missile tests are conducted. Pine Gap is the ground station for the Rhyolite series of satellites and the ones which followed which hang in stationary orbit over Borneo monitoring signals intelligence. This monitoring is the most important source of data available to ensure that the Soviet Union does not cheat on nuclear arms agreements. The satellites are actually capable of monitoring Soviet missile tests telemetry, providing information on the performance of new Soviet missile systems, although that is not all they are capable of. Pine Gap plays not only a central-and there appears to be general agreement on this among even the prominent critics of the bases in Australia-but also an irreplaceable role in monitoring Soviet missile testing. Senator Vallentine, if she can explain how any degree of nuclear disarmament, however small, can be achieved without providing for verification, had better explain it in better detail than she has so far. There is a very recent publication by a prominent contributor to this debate not know for his support of American and Australian joint facilities in Australia, Professor Desmond Ball. The book is entitled A Base for Debate. On page 13 of the preface to that book, Professor Ball, having made the case for closing down Nurrungar-I point out that we are discussing the base at Pine Gap today-stated: On the other hand, in the case of the CIA's SIGINT satellite ground station at Pine Gap, the verification of arms control arrangements has made the operation both necessary and virtuous. Signals intelligence collected at Pine Gap is used by various U.S. agencies for different purposes, some of which undeniably enhance the war-fighting aspects of the US strategic posture, but much of which is essential to the verification of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the SALT constraints on strategic offensive nuclear forces, and the other arms control agreements. Moreover, technological trends suggest that Pine Gap's unique capabilities will become even more critical to the success of any future arms control and disarmament efforts. It is simply not possible to seriously support arms control and disarmament and at the same time argue for the closure of Pine Gap. Senator Sanders —When was the book written? Senator COLLINS —I suggest that Senator Sanders is not very close to the debate. He would know if he had followed the debate that the book was published in 1987 with a whole host of attendant publicity, obviously all of which went over his head. The first part of the matter of public importance states: The refusal of the Government to admit that the Joint Defence Space Research Facility . . . has an offensive role in a nuclear warfighting scenario . . . Of course, that assertion is based on the theory of a first strike capability. Senator Vallentine is nodding assent to that, so I assume that that is a correct interpretation of what she is saying. If only such a thing were possible. If we could even suggest in this day and age that there was a capacity for a first strike, we might be able to take the next logical step and suggest that there would be some survivors of a nuclear war. I do not believe in either theory. I do not think that anyone who has paid serious attention to this debate-I certainly have-could put forward such nonsense. Senator Sanders —You don't think there is a first strike capability? Senator COLLINS —If the honourable senator directs his mind to the debate he will realise that there is of course a first strike capability. It is the strategic theory which is not feasible. What we have-this is accepted by anyone who has paid any attention to the debate-is the old strategic situation, which we went through a period of rejecting, of mutually assured destruction, or MAD. That is precisely the situation we now have. Despite a period of about 10 years when the major powers tried to kid everyone, their own citizens in particular, that such a strategy was not in place, we still have MAD. It is a great acronym. I point out to Senator Sanders that we have fleets of undetectable nuclear armed submarines of frightening capacity which exist purely for their retaliation capacity. First strike is not a strategy which either the USA or the Soviet Union would pursue any longer. Such a strategy relies, firstly, on total surprise being achieved and, secondly, the capacity, along with total surprise, to knock out, in the space of no longer than 30 minutes, every substantive nuclear capacity of the enemy, including deep silos, bomber fleets, the mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles and the fleets of nuclear submarines carrying multiheaded warheads. It is a nonsensical proposition. It simply is not accepted by any person who seriously follows this debate. I might add that Senator Sanders, in terms of his previous puerile contributions to this debate-I hope that the substantive speech he delivers is a bit better than his interjections-interjected, in response to a claim that Pine Gap was a joint facility and not a United States base, that it was obviously not a joint facility because we cannot walk through it. What a nonsensical, childish contribution to the debate. How can Senator Sanders honestly expect anyone to take him seriously if that is the level of his contribution? As I said in response, Senator Sanders should try to walk free and unhindered through the Pentagon and see how far he gets. Is the fact that one gets stopped at the door proof positive that the Pentagon is run by the Soviet Union? I would not think so. That was a stupid contribution to the debate. The fact is that the officer in charge of the Pine Gap base is Australian. Senator Sanders —Yes, I have met him. Senator COLLINS —I have met him too. The reality is that he is Australian. The facility director is American. They run the facility jointly and neither one is subordinate to the other. Of course, that is a little fact that Senator Sanders would have no trouble in ignoring. The personnel who run the bases are divided about half and half; there are about 250 Australian personnel and about 250 American personnel. It has been well established by people such as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Bill Hayden, and many others that Australians have complete access to all the operational areas of the base. It is in truth a joint facility, whether Senator Sanders wants to accept that fact or not. The issue around which this debate revolves is not the question of whether Pine Gap should be closed down because, in terms of pursuing a multilateral verifiable disarmament program, no one ever has an explanation for what we do after we close down Pine Gap, what the next step is. The issue on which this debate really centres is whether Australia continues to be an aligned or a non-aligned country. That is the key point of the debate. The issue is not whether we close down Pine Gap. I am pleased to see that Senator Vallentine agrees with that statement as well. It is a fact that the substantive debate is concerned with whether Australia should be an aligned or a non-aligned country. If we accept that Australia should be aligned, certain obligations must go with that alliance. I will read briefly from the Government's policy document in regard to that matter. The very substantive statement introduced into the Parliament by the Minister for Defence, Kim Beazley, entitled The Defence of Australia, states in paragraph 1.13 on page 3, in regard to Australia and the United States: Australia is part of the Western community of nations. Australia therefore supports the ability of the United States to retain an effective strategic balance with the Soviet Union. A redistribution of power in favour of the Soviet Union in the central balance, or an extension of Soviet influence in our region at the expense of the United States, would be a matter of fundamental concern to Australia and would be contrary to our national interests. One either agrees with that statement or one does not. I fundamentally agree with it. I think that an expansion of Soviet power in our area-it is very active indeed in the Indian Ocean-would be contrary to Australia's national interests. Therefore, I support the American alliance. If we support the alliance, as I do, with all the misgivings that I have-just as any citizen of an independent country would have-we must realise that there are certain obligations attached to it. Part of these obligations is the continued operation of the joint facilities. The fact is, whether or not Senator Sanders or Senator Vallentine want to acknowledge it-implicit in Senator Vallentine's matter of public importance is an acceptance of it in any case-that Pine Gap plays an essential role in monitoring the missile testing of the Soviet Union and, indeed, China. Pine Gap plays a central role and, in the view of Professor Ball, an irreplaceable role, in terms of monitoring and safeguarding any nuc- lear disarmament agreement. If Senator Vallentine or, indeed, Senator Sanders or anyone else can put to me a tenable proposition-one that applies in the real world, not in fantasy land-that would allow for a reduction in nuclear arms without being able to verify that the parties to it are adhering to the agreement, I will be prepared to listen. Certainly, no honourable senator has been able to do so to this point in the debate. I support the proposition put by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) so succinctly in the House of Representatives on 6 June 1984 when he made his major statement on this matter. I support the position expressed by Senator Robert Ray today in leading the debate for the Government; that is, that the proper role, the proper policy and the proper decision for this Government in the national interests of this country are to support the American alliance and the continued operations of those joint facilities. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.29) —I support the motion put forward by the coalition in the following terms: The need for the Senate to express its support for the maintenance of Australia's alliance with the United States and to reaffirm the basis for the operation of joint defence facilities in Australia in light of recent demonstrations at Pine Gap. I commend also Senator Collins and Senator Robert Ray for their speeches on behalf of the Government. I note with considerable satisfaction the adoption by the Government over the last four years of the main bases of the coalition's approach to foreign affairs and defence over the last 40 years. In fact, there was a bipartisan commitment by the two major political parties in Australia when the Australian-American alliance commenced in the days of Curtin and Chifley. That same bipartisan approach continues in regard to the joint facilities. Despite the policies of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in opposition, despite the Socialist Left members of the present Government, the majority has prevailed and this is reflected in the views that we heard from Senator Ray and Senator Collins today. These facilities are joint Australian-American facilities. They are essential for the defence of Australia and for the maintenance of peace in the world. The main issue that is before us today is Pine Gap. Pine Gap is a joint Australian-American facility some kilometres from Alice Springs. It consists of a series of white domes under which antennae receive signals from satellites. A large number of satellites have been launched to detect signals, including electronic signals and photographic material, from various parts of the world. The antennae at Pine Gap receive those signals for interpretation. This is an essential activity which cannot be carried out in any other part of the world. The base is located in the centre of Australia because of the clear reception and lack of interference from other electronic signals that are necessary in monitoring satellite surveillance. It is also very well known what the Pine Gap facility broadly does. As I have said, it receives and monitors satellite signals and photographic material. This material is put together through a complex set of computers to give excellent intelligence for the benefit of the Australian-American alliance and for our own defence. Pine Gap is not an American base. Our American allies do not deploy troops on Australian soil. There is no armed fort at Alice Springs. There are some antennae which receive signals and computers which interpret those signals. This base is essential for the defence of Australia and it will continue. The reality of this debate in the Senate is that all of the huffing and puffing, the climbing of fences or the getting arrested of people who support the two disarmament senators or the Democrats will not make one jot of difference to the maintenance of the Australian-American alliance or to the maintenance of the joint facilities that include not only most importantly Pine Gap but also Nurrungar in my own State of South Australia and North West Cape in Western Australia. These, and some other less important facilities, are consciously viewed by a majority of parliamentarians as an essential contribution to the maintenance of world peace and as an essential basis for Australia's own defence. So the reality is that this debate-this little bit of noise that has been created in the month of October-is a means of demonstrating the clamour for that few per cent of the vote that appears to be winnable by Australian Democrat senators, by nuclear disarmament senators, by the greens, which was a new party at the last election, by the Socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party, by the Socialist Workers Party-and Senator Vallentine, who sits on the other side of the chamber, knows about that Party-or by the Communist Party of Australia. It is undeniable that the few per cent of Australian voters who support the views that have been put forward by Senator Vallentine today have to decide each election whether they will vote for a nuclear disarmament senator, a Democrat, a green, a communist, a socialist worker or the Socialist Left of the ALP if they stay with the Labor Party. That is what this debate is about. This debate will not have any impact whatsoever on the realities of Australia's defence, on the realities of the coalition's deterrence or on the ability to verify arms control agreements. It is purely a question of struggling around for those few per cent of Australians who will vote for one or other of those minority parties. Senator Coulter —You are cynical, aren't you? Senator TEAGUE —I am not cynical. I am deadly serious. I do not believe that a majority of Australians countenance for one second the views that were put forward here today by Senator Vallentine. Those views are rightly described as irresponsible, naive and counterproductive. Some people put forward the claim-and Senator Coulter may have been one of those who said this in the last election-that the bipartisan view between the Government and the Opposition that it is essential to have the American alliance and the joint facilities is some kind of conspiracy. In another decade it was called a conspiracy of the military-industrial complex, or some such thing. It is a lie to claim that some vested interest has swayed the minds of members of parliament against reason and knowledge. It is totally contrary to the truth. I must say to the Senate that I think I am well known as a co-convenor of the parliamentary disarmament group. I am one of the co-convenors of the disarmament forum in this Parliament House in the International Year of Peace. I was Deputy Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that wrote the report on disarmament and arms control that has been referred to by some speakers today. I was one of the authors of that 22-chapter report. I am proud to be associated with that most substantial report to this Parliament. I am not uninformed about maintaining peace and about the goals of disarmament. I say to honourable senators that the only disarmament that is sensibly supported, that ought to be supported, is mutual verifiable disarmament and not the naivety and irresponsibility that we heard today from the nuclear disarmament senator and from the Democrats. Let me come to the question of unilateralism. Senator Vallentine said that she is not a unilateralist. She is using this rhetoric because she knows that unilateralism is a concept that is understood by many Australians and is totally rejected by them. So she does not want that tag placed on her. But in her speech today she called for one-sided disarmament-that is, for the breaking of the Australian-American alliance. She called for the ending of the joint facilities. If that is not one-sided, if that is not unilateral, what is? It is a nonsense and it is dangerous to put such views. Such pacifist and soft-headed views were advanced in the 1930s against the Nazi threat in Germany. Let me put a most recent and very realistic example to the Senate. I refer to the recent agreement by Shultz and Shevardnadze to put together an agreement for the elimination of intermediate nuclear forces in Europe and, indeed, for the abandonment by the Soviet Union and the United States of all intermediate nuclear weapons. This was not the outcome of demonstrations by nuclear disarmament senators or greens. It was the outcome of a response by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces to put in Europe an immediate deterrent to the deployment by the Soviet Union of SS20 missiles which were aimed at every capital in Western Europe. When the SS20s were deployed by the Soviet Union in the late 1970s to threaten the whole of western Europe, the Western nations came together and gained from the United States Pershing and cruise missiles and deployed them in their own countries in order to have a direct deterrent to the Soviet union ever using the SS20s. Because we have had eight years of that deployment since 1979, to the point where the deployment is nearly completed, we now have an agreement, based upon strength on the West's part, that the SS20s, the Pershing and cruise missiles, we trust, will be eliminated if President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev meet next month to sign the pencilled agreement that their Foreign Ministers have developed. Let me turn to the Committee to which I referred, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which undertook the most thorough survey of these questions that any parliament has recently had placed before it. In the last Parliament there were 28 members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The Committee brought down a 22-chapter report entitled Disarmament and Arms Control. Chapter 15 is devoted entirely to the joint facilities in Australia. Page 472 reads: The Committee supports the continued presence of the joint facilities in Australia. Page 470 reads: A decision to close down the facilities would not be supported by the Australian population at large. The reasons for that conclusion are that the joint facilities are essential to gain intelligence, to give verification that will enable arms control agreements, and enable the alliance to have a deterrent that will stop the launching of nuclear missiles by any enemy of Australia. If we did not have a sufficient deterrence, if we did not have the means of verification, if we did not have the careful intelligence that is provided by the satellite receiving station at Pine Gap, we would be very significantly weakened. We would be laying ourselves open to not defending Australia responsibly and not contributing positively to the maintenance of world peace. The Committee concluded on page 468 that the joint facilities are essential for deterrence. It stated: While the facilities may be making an increasing contribution to extended deterrence, it remains the case that Pine Gap and Nurrungar in particular continue to operate in support of basic deterrence-primarily through their intelligence collection and early warning functions-and that Pine Gap provides the United States with an important National Technical Means of verifying Soviet compliance with existing or projected arms control agreements. One of the experts in this field in Australia is the Head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, Dr Des Ball. Five or 10 years ago he was the hero of many of the irresponsible members of the peace movement, who would quote him to gain the little information that they had about these facilities. He has stated: There is no doubt that SALT (the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) was predicated on adequate and detailed verification facilities. You would not have had SALT . . . That is, we would not have had the major arms control agreement unless we had those facilities. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(4.44) —What we have had here this afternoon is an illustration, once again, of the fact that there is no basic difference in this country between the Opposition and the Government. They are the `Li- borials'. There is one indivisible party which operates, not in the best interests of Australia, but in the best interests of our rich and powerful friend, the United States of America. We have seen a tremendous example-a reprehensible example, actually-of the cultural cringe. Australians sitting in this Parliament are afraid to take control of Australia's affairs. Why has this come to pass? For many years Australia was a colony of Great Britain. Until World War II Australia was told to look to Great Britain as a rich and powerful friend-a friend which would protect our country in time of strife. Of course, Great Britain could not protect us in a time of strife, during World War II, so the Americans, in the Battle of the Coral Sea, came to our aid. The Australian people transferred their allegiance to the United States. But they did so uncritically, and I think it is time that we re-examined this allegiance and what it is doing to us. The most obvious case in which it is distorting our safety is in the case of the bases. No one in this place has argued that the bases are not a nuclear target. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has admitted that the bases are a nuclear target. The argument seems to be that we will somehow buy something from the United States; that by exposing ourselves to nuclear war-and this is not a nuclear umbrella; it is a nuclear lightening rod, as Dr Jim Falk says-we will gain some protection. We will not. As a former American, I am here to tell everyone that the Americans will do what is in America's best self-interest. They will not protect Australia in time of strife. If we get into a military situation with Indonesia or with any other conceivable enemy, the United States will not automatically come to our aid because we have some military facilities that belong to the United States. If it is in its interest to support us, it will. Look at the grain deals. Look at what is happening to our agricultural exports to the United States at the moment. We crawl to the Yanks and say, `Look, we have your bases, we allow your ships into our ports. Please give us access to your markets'. The Yanks say, `Go away, kid. You bother me'. That is the kind of reaction we can expect. What we are basically doing is signing a one-way agreement. We sign away our safety; we make ourselves nuclear targets; the United States makes no commitments to us at all. I have been listening to this argument in the Senate this afternoon. I am gratified that both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party-and the Opposition in general-have said, `These bases are essential to verification. That is their main role. That is why we like them here. That is why we allow them to exist. We feel they add to world peace because of verification'. Des Ball wrote a book which was published in 1977, as Senator Collins told us. However, this book was written before the most recent breakthroughs in the reduction of the intermediate range nuclear forces (INF). There is a whole new ball game out there. The argument in this chamber today has been a Cold War argument, an old argument. I do not even agree with the basic concepts of verifications under this argument. Verification is not reliant solely on Pine Gap. If one is talking about verification, one is talking about optical satellites which are polar orbiting and which can release their data into any number of areas within the continental United States or territories of the United States. So, in any event Pine Gap is not the essential verification base and neither is Nurrungar. I will talk about the other bases in a moment. Under the recent agreements between Gorbachev and Reagan a whole new regime of verification is opening up. That regime is on-site verification. No amount of gee whiz gadgetry is the equal of a humanised, on the ground look at military and missile establishments in the Soviet Union, and in the United States, for that matter. This is happening. Part of the INF agreement includes on-site inspection and the destruction of nuclear weapons, under supervision of all the countries involved. This is a new development to which Des Ball had no access because it had not happened. No one in this chamber has mentioned it yet. In fact, it makes Pine Gap absolutely obsolete as a verification base. It makes it redundant and makes its only role, as one of the prime bases, to assess the weakness of Soviet communications systems for first strike. Senator Collins, who represents a small population in the Northern Territory, presumes to speak for the US military establishment, which has always maintained that it had not only the first strike capability but a propensity for first strike. To a military planner, first strike is the only way to ensure the destruction of one's target. It is a `use it or lose it' concept, and that is what the MX missile is all about. It is a silo buster. It is for a first strike, and that is recorded over and over again in the literature. I am sorry that the honourable senator has not yet caught up with it. The danger of this is that a first strike may be launched by misadventure, by miscalculation of military planners or by false alarms. Pine Gap is one of the many systems that takes in intelligence. They are all highly sophisticated and are becoming more highly automated. We are entering a new type of missile launching regime-launch on warning-in which the computers take over and there is no human interface at all. The statistics show that between 1977 and 1984 North American Air Defence admitted to six false alarms, four of which actually accounted for the deployment of nuclear forces. These all came about for a variety of reasons, one of which was erroneous information and on a computer simulation of a nuclear attack which was treated as the real thing until the mistake was discovered after six minutes. If we go into a launch on warning missile system, we will not have the six minute time scale to work with any more. Pine Gap is one of the systems which would input into a launch on warning system. Therefore, if we get into this aspect of our nuclear capability, we are contributing to World War III by the presence of facilities such as Nurrungar and Pine Gap. There is no argument here. The defence planners understand that. The other thing about first strike-and I am sure that Senator Collins would have in his heart a soft spot for the strategic defence initiative (SDI) because he seems to enjoy all the other peace through strength-type arguments-is that SDI will work only if a first strike is launched ahead of time, because SDI cannot knock out all the possible Soviet missiles. It can knock out only a proportion of them. It will not function properly without first strike. First strike is a policy of the United States and of the military leaders of the United States, and Pine Gap adds to this first strike capability. I found quite a bit of similarity between the thinking in this chamber and that in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) among the people to whom we talked recently when a parliamentary delegation went to NATO headquarters in Brussels. We talked to Mr Merrill Walters, who is the NATO Director for Nuclear Planning, and a US colonel named G. R. Akam. They told us that NATO's flexible response depended on nuclear weapons. Incredibly, their opinion was that a nuclear war could be limited and winnable. It was clear that they feared the outbreak of peace because it could take their toys away. I am afraid, from what I have heard in this chamber today, that some honourable senators also fear the outbreak of peace because then they would have to think about where their true allegiance should be. I put it to them that it should not be with the United States of America but with Australia. The way to cement that allegiance to Australia is to get rid of the US bases on our soil. Senator SCHACHT(South Australia)(4.55) —I rise to oppose the matter proposed by Senator Vallentine. Earlier in the debate, Senator Robert Ray remarked on my contribution to the Australia Labor Party (ALP) policy on foreign affairs and defence. Until June this year, I had the great honour of being the chairperson of the ALP national executive platform committee on defence and foreign affairs for four years. That platform has been vigorously debated within the Party and reviewed on several occasions. Senator Robert Ray is correct to say that at the last national conference, in 1986 in Hobart, the policy included the arrangement on matters dealing with the joint facilities. It was passed on the voices, and there was not even a call for a division. I accept that there is a range of opinion within the Labor Party and differences of opinion about foreign affairs. That has always been the position in the Labor Party and it has been vigorously debated and argued. However, that has not deterred the ALP from stating its commitment towards its arrangements with America. It should be pointed out that the Labor Party was in government in 1941-42, when John Curtin established defence arrangements with America at the time of the crisis over the war with Japan. The Labor Party has never voted at a national conference to change that arrangement. That has always been our position. Even in the debate in the early 1960s, when the North West Cape facility was established, the Party supported that decision. The Party has been consistent on its position and its arrangements with America. I do not think people should see this as Australia being part of an American alliance. Australians have had to take a decision-and the ALP has taken that decision-that we are part of what is called the first world, politically, culturally, socially and economically. We have much in common with countries in North America and Western Europe and with our closest neighbour, New Zealand. We all have similar commitments to democracy and freedom of speech and religion. It is only natural that that is where Australia will see its arrangements in defence matters, alliances and so on. The Labor Party is not defensive about defending that position. In the context of the time since the Second World War, that means we have had a position of America as the major power in the First World and the Western alliance and we have had particular arrangements. However, the Labor Party must emphasise that we have an independent foreign policy and, whether we are in opposition or in government, we have on many occasions indicated to the Americans that we have differences of opinion with them over particular matters. Unlike the National Party or the Liberal Party, we have indicated significant differences. At the moment, in foreign affairs, we have indicated to the Americans that we disagree with their policy over Central America, over the Kampuchean issue, over southern Africa and over the strategic defence initiative. We are disappointed that America has not signed the protocols on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which was an initiative of the Federal Labor Government. It all indicates that, though we are a part of the so-called Western alliance or the alliances of the First World and have arrangements with America, that has not derogated from our commitment to our independent sovereignty and to having an independent foreign policy. I believe that the comments by Senator Sanders are misleading, and certainly not in the context of the Australian Labor Party's long history of creating an independent foreign policy. I accept the fact that Senator Saunders has not been a long time citizen of this country, but I urge him to read the history of the Australian Labor Party since 1891, and he will find, throughout all that history, a commitment to an independent foreign policy. The Hawke Labor Government is carrying on that grand tradition. I shall quote the words of Bill Hayden in the Evatt Memorial Speech on 7 July 1983. Dr Evatt did more than anybody else in the history of Australia to establish an independent foreign policy attitude in Australia, which gave us great recognition, and as a result was the first President of the United Nations General Assembly. Bill Hayden said: I remind you also that the alliance is not only an ultimate guarantee. It is a dynamic relationship between sovereign and equal partners who share the most fundamental values. It is not an association between an active great power and a passive smaller one as some people suggest. An arrangement of that sort would diminish its value to both sides. He went on to say: This Government, in its international relations, will clearly project an Australian national identity and accept a national responsibility. In all areas of foreign affairs that has been a hallmark of the success of the present Government. We come to the issue of nuclear disarmament. I accept the bona fides of the Australian Democrats, Senator Vallentine and Senator Wood and that they have an absolute commitment to nuclear disarmament; but I absolutely reject the moralising when they say that we in the Australian Labor Party do not have the same commitment because we do not support their policy regarding the joint facilities. I think that the Australian Labor Party has done more than most people in the community give it credit for. For example, one of the major initiatives of the Australian Labor Government in its four years in office is its work on achieving a comprehensive test ban treaty. People say, `What is the value of the relationship we have with America? What value do we get out of it?'. I will give one specific example: Nobody in this place, none of the parties represented here, would disagree with the achievement of a comprehensive test ban treaty. Up until 1984 the Americans in the United States used their veto against any debate on the comprehensive test ban treaty. That was a Reagan Government position. We disagreed with it. We argued for a debate and we used our influence to get the Americans to go from a position of vetoing to abstaining in regard to that debate. That enabled the debate on the comprehensive test ban treaty to proceed to a more progressive position. That is a fundamental achievement of this Government in regard to nuclear disarmament. It may not please the glory seekers who want to throw themselves on the razor wire around Pine Gap or around the other joint facilities; but, fundamentally, it will have more effect in the world towards achieving nuclear disarmament than some of the people who carry banners. I accept the right of Jo Vallentine to demonstrate publicly, even though it is in opposition to Government policy. I believe that everybody in this community has the right to demonstrate publicly, even if it causes inconvenience. I do not agree with Senator Tambling's remarks about the cost. What about the cost of the demonstration by the people in north Queensland against Senator Richardson recently because they opposed the Government policy on the preservation of the Daintree rainforest? That demonstration caused obvious public distress. Obviously, there was a cost to the authorities in that demonstration. I support the right of the north Queensland people who wanted to have that demonstration. I also support the right, although I disagree with the issue she is demonstrating over, of Senator Vallentine or other people to participate in such demonstrations. That is a fundamental principle which the Labor Party has always guaranteed in its own policy. Another achievement of the Hawke Labor Government for which we have not been given credit and about which many people are disparaging-it again indicates the difference of opinion with America, to which people are always saying we are mendicants in regard to policy-is the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. It is a great disappointment to me that Great Britain and America have refused to sign the protocols to that treaty. We have made our position known strongly to the Americans, namely, that we believe that they are not doing themselves any good in the South Pacific region by refusing to sign the protocols. We will continue to put that position. But the achievement of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, which was a major achievement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), should be one for which the Australian Democrats, Senator Vallentine and others should give us major credit. The next position of Senator Vallentine and the Democrats, which I cannot support and which I wish to raise, is that they give the impression that they are unilateralists in nuclear disarmament. Senator Vallentine has tried to refute that today, but one cannot be other than a unilateralist if one expects Australia, in its relationships with America, the Western alliance or in the First World alliance, to take unilaterally or off its own bat decisions which affect the nuclear balance. Senator Wood —They are not. Senator SCHACHT —It may be good for Senator Wood's heart to suggest that, but it will achieve nothing, just as I do not expect the Soviet Union unilaterally to disarm itself of nuclear weapons. The only way there will be a lasting nuclear disarmament accord in this world is for the super-powers with nuclear weapons to reach agreement to multilaterally, step by step, reduce nuclear weapons. We cannot expect either of the super-powers, off its own bat, to reduce weapons. Unfortunately, there is not the level of trust in the world for that to occur. Multilateral negotiations are the only way to go. That is why, thankfully, the super-powers are having success at the moment in the negotiations over intermediate nuclear weapons in Western Europe which may well lead to reductions in strategic nuclear weapons. That is a multilateral negotiation; it is not unilateral. There will only be success by multilateral negotiation. I also point out to the Democrats and to Senator Vallentine that if we do achieve-as I hope we will some time in the next decade-the elimination of nuclear weapons, we should not stop there for disarmament; it also includes conventional weapons. There has to be negotiation to reduce the level of conventional weapons in this world, because that will still be a major source of instability. The only way we will reduce conventional weapons is, again, by multilateral discussions and debate, not by unilateral discussions. I urge the Democrats and Senator Vallentine to support multilateral discussions. My time is expiring. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am sure that this matter will come back for further debate at a later stage. I will enjoy entering the debate then. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.07) —The motion before the chair is false and irresponsible. It misleads the Australian public on a matter of the greatest importance to them. It damages Australia's security and it therefore damages the security of the Western democracies because their security and our security are indivisible. If it were passed, it would create instability because it would undermine the very systems that are in place, keeping the world peaceful and secure at present. It would, therefore, increase the likelihood of nuclear war through misunderstanding. We get a great deal of passion from the proponents of this motion, but passion is not a guarantee of correctness or of accuracy. Both those qualities are sadly lacking from their argument. I would like to say something about peace, to start with. Peace, sadly, is not a natural condition between the nations of the world. As the first 40 years of this century showed, it is something that is very hard to obtain. The fact that through the last 45 years of this century we have followed a policy of deterrence, which has given us peace and security and an absence of the huge carnage that we saw in two world wars speaks volumes in itself. The other thing about peace is that it has a qualitative element which is quite lacking from anything that the Australian Democrats or the unilateral nuclear disarmers put up. There can be the peace and freedom which the Western democracies enjoy and for which they are prepared to fight for their citizens; there can be the peace of the grave; and there can be the peace of a totalitarian regime where every sign of dissension is crushed by brute force. Let us talk about peace with freedom, because that is what we enjoy in this country and it is what we share with the other Western democracies. It is not fashionable these days to talk about the Soviet threat in relation to our security, particularly in an age of Mr Gorbachev and his doctrine of glasnost. All of us hope that the Soviets are maturing in their international relations. We in the Western nations have given them the opportunity to mature because we have not exacerbated relationships in any way at all while we have followed a policy of deterrence which provides for our own security. But the threat remains, and we must take cognisance of history. We hope that the Soviets are changing, but until they do we must maintain our own security. We need to be cautious. The Western democracies have followed a policy of deterrence. As Senator Collins said, in the 1960s it was a policy of mutually assured destruction. In the 1970s it went to the doctrine of flexible response and that largely came about through the technological advance in the weapons systems that were being used. It is absolutely wrong and misleading for Senator Vallentine to claim that at present the United States intercontinental ballistic missiles are targeted irresponsibly against the civilian population. That is absolutely untrue. The United States missile force is targeted specifically against the arsenals of the Soviet Union. It is targeted there because it is a second strike capability; it is not a primary strike weapon. It would be irresponsible to waste targeting opportunities against a civilian population. I would like to deal with deterrence in relation to a first and second strike capability. Deterrence turns on having a second strike capability; it is not a primary strike weapon. The Western democracies have made it very clear by their actions that they are not interested in aggression in any way at all. But for a second strike capability to exist, the weapons have to be survivable. Deterrence turns on not only having weapons systems but also on having sophisticated intelligence gathering capabilities, of which Pine Gap is a part, sophisticated command and control and a system of checks and balances built into those command and control systems so no unauthorised or misapplication of the force is possible. Deterrence is not an end in itself, but it is a means to an end and that end is peace. That is the aim of all mankind. We must now, with the strength of destructive power of nuclear weapons, have a situation where war will not occur. The deterrence policies of the Western democracies have brought this about over the last 40 years. I make the point that deterrence must be judged against the record of history, not against the emotional outpourings of people such as Senator Vallentine. I now turn to Pine Gap and its place in the deterrence picture. Its place is in the sophisticated intelligence gathering field. It tells us and the United States what the Soviets are doing in relation to the testing of weapons. It tells us whether weapons are being launched and thereby tells us, from an analysis of their flight paths, whether they are launched offensively against Western democracies. It is an essential part in what is known as national technical means of verification. Senator Sanders showed his technical ignorance once more by saying that surveillance is performed by optical satellites operating in polar orbits. I do not wish to go into a discussion of satellite technology because a large part of it is classified. Very few optical satellites are being used by the United States at present. The imaging satellites are electro-optical systems these days and nearly all are of the KH-11 series. The optical ones have disappeared over the years. Pine Gap receives information from satellites about what the Soviets are doing with their missile system. It always seems strange to me that at disarmament conferences in Geneva or at the United Nations in New York everyone applauds national technical means of verification and the existence of satellites and ground stations to receive information because of the guarantees they bring for peace and security through the knowledge they impart, yet in Australia people such as Senator Vallentine and Senator Sanders see satellites as instruments of darkness. One of the intents behind the anti-ballistic missile treaty is linked with the protection of satellites because of the protection they bring by guaranteeing knowledge of what the other side is doing. The system of deterrence that we follow is a difficult system. It is complex and it certainly has some inherent dangers, but, as adults, we cannot walk away from those dangers. The PRESIDENT —Order! The time for the debate has expired. The discussion on the matter of public importance having concluded, pursuant to order of the Senate made earlier this day, I now read to the Senate the following matter of urgency submitted to me by Senator Tambling: `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to express its support for the maintenance of Australia's alliance with the United States and to reaffirm the basis for the operation of the joint defence facilities in Australia in light of recent demonstrations at Pine Gap.' Pursuant to order, I now put the question: That the statement of Senator Vallentine's matter of public importance be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C.Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Aulich, T. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael McKiernan, J. P.Baume, Peter Maguire, G. R.Beahan, M. E. Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Morris, J. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M.Black, J. R. Panizza, J. H.Bolkus, N. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Burns, B. R. Ray, RobertChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chapman, H. G. P. Reynolds, M. E.Childs, B. K. Richardson, G. F.Coates, J. Ryan, S. M.Collins, R. L. Schacht, C. C.Colston, M. A. Sheil, G.Cook, P. F. S. Short, J. R.Cooney, B. Sibraa, K. W.Crowley, R. A. Stone, J. O.Devereux, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J.Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. E.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W.Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the motion of urgency submitted by Senator Tambling be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C.Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Aulich, T. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael McKiernan, J. P.Baume, Peter Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Beahan, M. E. Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Morris, J. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M.Black, J. R. Panizza, J. H.Bolkus, N. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Burns, B. R. Ray, RobertChaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Reynolds, M. E.Childs, B. K. Richardson, G. F.Coates, J. Ryan, S. M.Collins, R. L. Schacht, C. C.Colston, M. A. Sheil, G.Cook, P. F. S. Short, J. R.Cooney, B. Sibraa, K. W.Crowley, R. A. Stone, J. O.Devereux, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J.Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. E.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W.Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(5.29) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I rise as one of the three parliamentary advisers to the forty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly. I note that Andrew Peacock, the then shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, was one of the other advisers and that Senator Robert Hill was the third parliamentary adviser. Senator Hill is not here today but I am sure that even though he might not agree totally with all the policy issues I will canvass he would want to place on record his appreciation for the assistance the personnel and staff of the Australian mission to the United Nations (UN) gave for the duration of the session in New York. Much of what I want to say and much of what Senator Hill would want to say has already been canvassed in annexure E of the overall report, but I think it is important for me to place on record the respect that the Australian delegation to the mission had and the respect that we thought the other delegations in New York had for our staff there. Issues such as New Caledonia, on which we took a leadership role, issues such as the reorganisation and financial accountability process within the United Nations and issues such as Antarctica were all very much to the forefront of our agenda. It was felt throughout the UN that Australia was playing a very positive role in pursuing our policy objectives in those areas. The major policy objective that we are pursuing was that of disarmament. I think it is fair to say that the Australian delegation had major successes not only in respect of our major priority, which was the comprehensive test ban treaty resolution-which of all resolutions moved in this area of the United Nations managed to obtain the highest vote-but also when it came to issues such as chemical test ban treaties and interim regimes on notification of nuclear tests. It is fair to say, as we have said in our report, that Australia's performance on this committee was enthusiastic, highly skilled and successful and much commendation must go to Ambassador Butler and his staff for the way they approached that part of the brief that Australia was pursuing. Without canvassing other areas individually and noting that there is not much time to do that, I think it is fair to say that the respect in the United Nations for Ambassador Woolcott and the rest of the mission very much permeated the assessment of Australia's performance at the United Nations General Assembly. Whether it was on human rights, the financial crisis of the United Nations, where we played a positive leadership role, or in participating to the limited extent that we were in the Security Council, that respect was evident time and time again. The one area where we both thought Australia lacked in terms of our contribution was the second committee. As our report states, although we felt that Australia made a major contribution on the agricultural trade issue, in the area of Third World debt I think we were hampered by the differences of opinion held by officers in the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Without delving much into those differences, I am sure that they handicapped our performance in this area. Once again I place on record my recognition of, and my thanks for, the support that both Senator Hill and I obtained from Ambassador Woolcott and all his staff at the United Nations. I wish to note in passing that we thought that this trip, which is available to parliamentarians, was an extremely important one not only in terms of our appreciation of foreign affairs issues and the Foreign Affairs Department but also in terms of the Department's understanding of how politicians work. I note with regret that this has not been allowed to continue this year and I hope that, because of a wide range of positive factors that both Senator Hill and I thought came out of this trip, the parliamentary advisory aspect of such delegations will be continued in future years. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.34) —In following Senator Bolkus in speaking to this report of the Australian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly, the point I want to address is the failure of the Government to fund parliamentarians on such delegations. This facility has been granted to members of the Senate and the House of Representatives for quite a few years. I do not know when it started but I was one of the delegates in 1983 and, as a parliamentarian, I found it an extremely valuable experience and everyone I know who has been there has the same view. Undeniably, it is an expensive trip because it involves two parliamentarians being in New York, with the associated high rental costs, for a period of three months through the duration of the General Assembly. But it has considerable educational benefits. The parliamentarians actually work in the mission and, therefore, work in a branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and they make a contribution to the understanding and the views that professional Foreign Affairs officers have. Conversely, the parliamentarians themselves learn how the Foreign Affairs Department works. The Department of Foreign Affairs is different from the usual run of departments in the Australian bureaucracy. Senator Stone —It is unusual. Senator MacGIBBON —I think it is unusual in many ways but, unlike the mindless paper shuffling that goes on in departments such as Treasury, the Department of Foreign Affairs has a much more complex operation. One simply does not understand what goes on until one works in the office beside the officers and one goes through about three inches of cables that continually come in through the day from posts all round the world. One also learns about the practice of diplomacy. Of course, most diplomacy is practised on a one on one basis. There are Australian posts in London, Bonn, Tokyo and so on, and the relationship between the Australian Embassy and the host country is essentially a one on one relationship. The Australian mission to the United Nations in New York is the only place where we practise multilateral diplomacy, where we are dealing simultaneously with all the nations that make up the United Nations; I forget how many there are but it is in excess of 160. For someone who has an interest in foreign affairs, the educational value of this trip is enormous. The role of foreign affairs is very much downgraded in this Parliament. We see the consequence of that in some of the problems we have in our trade at present. Very few people in this Senate and hardly anyone in the House of Representatives understands how the United States Congress works and how the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate go through their legislative practice. A greater understanding of foreign affairs not only contributes to the defence of the country, which we were talking about in the previous debate, but also makes a significant impact on our standard of living insofar as it affects our understanding of trade and other matters like that. I have not been able to work out why this post has been cut. It used to come to the Senate once every three years. I have not been following it because the Senate had a turn last year when Senator Hill and Senator Bolkus went and we would not be due to nominate senators until three years have elapsed. But somewhere in the arcane workings of the Australian Labor Party the decision was taken to cut it. Apparently it was funded out of the Department of Foreign Affairs vote and not out of the usual parliamentary travel entitlements. But if it was cancelled in the Department of Foreign Affairs the decision to cancel could not have been taken without the knowledge and approval of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) and I imagine that it would not have been done without the approval of the Caucus. Anyway, when the Department of Foreign Affairs refused to fund it, it then came to the Presiding Officers-the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives-and they similarly refused to fund it. As far as I am aware, no statement has ever been made in public as to why the Presiding Officers declined to carry on with these posts. I think it is something that the Senate should inquire into in due course because I believe that they provided a very valuable function, both to the Parliament and to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.39) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. When I looked back through my notes I found that I had spoken previously on the report of the Insurance Commissioner. I rise again to speak on much the same sorts of issues. I think we are inclined to believe that insurance is the safety net that covers everything and we do not need to worry too much about it. But insurance is now an extraordinarily large business. In the year ended 31 December 1986 insurance premiums amounted to $5,612m and the return was an underwriting deficit of $800m. It is just impossible for a business to continue losing that sort of money on any of its pursuits without this being caught up with increased premiums for the users. This amount represents 118.26 per cent of the total earnings and no business can run in such a way. The situation is so bad because of criminal fraud arising from insurance. Everybody thinks it is reasonable that the insurance company is a fair touch. The situation requires considerably greater stiffening by the insurance companies. They need to query and reject claims and refer more for investigation. I believe a proper investigation is necessary. Whether it will be by a parliamentary committee, I do not know. The investigation should look at all the areas of fraud and the methods most appropriate to eliminate them. People such as those in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Building Research, the police research units and the various universities and other organisations could do this. I believe we need a proper inquiry to investigate the nature and extent of the problem and what to do about it. The insurance position will continue to decline until we do. The level of fraud is still rising, whether in motor vehicles, workers compensation, arson or other illegal activities. The Senate should be looking at this with a view to seeing what we should do. Insurance is an extraordinarily large part of the overall commercial life of Australia and it needs to be considered as such. I will certainly be looking at this now with a view to bringing forward a proposal that there should be an investigation to do something about it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(5.43) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I note that the reference to the Australian Science and Technology Council was very much in terms of how Australia might increase its competitiveness through innovation and technological transformation. I rise to speak because I wish to make the point that I made in my maiden speech; namely, that it is wrong and inappropriate for Australia to continue to encourage competitiveness when what we need to do is encourage co-operation. In a world in which the economic pattern is part of the total environmental and biospheric pattern we can become more competitive and expand only at the expense of the natural environment. We are now in danger of destroying that very biosphere on which we depend. In this case we have given to a body a term of reference which has guided it to make recommendations which are perhaps contrary to the recommendations that a better informed government and a better informed body may have made. I note that Professor Slatyer, a biologist, chaired the body which examined this reference, but I note also that it contains many people from industry. Not surprisingly, it responded in this very conservative and rather anachronistic way to this inappropriate reference. Senator Peter Baume —Is that fair to Professor Slatyer? Senator COULTER —I am not casting any aspersions on Professor Slatyer. On the contrary, I think that Professor Slatyer, given a different reference, may well have come to different conclusions: it was inappropriate for the Government to have given him such a limited term of reference which prevented him from questioning that term of reference. The principal recommendations, which are on pages 4 and 5 of the report, begin by referring to greater national competitiveness requiring many individual companies to become more innovative and to develop different approaches. Clearly the Council was constrained by the terms of reference. I simply rise to make the point that I hope that in future this Parliament will give references which are more comprehensive and which will allow an alternative approach to the future which takes into account the limited nature of the natural environment to respond to further expansion of human industrial development. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.46) —Mr Deputy President, the report on improving Australia's competitiveness through industrial research and development has a number of recommendations and I wish to touch on the recommendation which relates to investment in the work force by giving the work force a chance to invest in the enterprise. One of the recommendations is that the Government examine ways of simplifying present regulations to enable greater use of share option schemes and in particular allow employees to be taxed upon sale of shares rather than when options are exercised. On behalf of the Opposition I very much welcome that recommendation of the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC), because the Opposition has had as its policy for some time the encouragement of employee share ownership, not merely in the sort of high technology companies to which this report specifically refers but generally. Indeed, both last year and earlier this year in the course of the election campaign we argued that it would be very helpful to Australia's present situation if we could encourage employees to have a proprietary interest in the enterprise for which they work. As we said before that would achieve the three objectives of greater reward for effort, improved productivity and greater industrial harmony. ASTEC has brought forward the specific problem which is faced by high technology companies-that many of Australia's best research scientists have been attracted overseas by better conditions of employment. This is part of the brain drain that seems to have been going on for a great period in Australia. The report usefully points out that in many overseas countries share options are provided in those companies which do not necessarily have the capacity to pay very large salaries initially, because they are just starting up, but are able to offer the prospect to employees of sharing in the wealth that the employees themselves create. That seems to be so obvious as to be almost not worth saying, but the fact is that we do place impediments in the way of employee share ownership in Australia which could be removed and which would encourage the greater use of share options and share ownership generally. My purpose in raising this afternoon is to direct the attention of the Government to the recommendations of ASTEC. The fact that they square with the views of the Opposition should not deter the Government from considering them. I do not believe reform in this area should be delayed until after the next election when we return to government. I wish to encourage the Government to look at both the company law barriers to the granting of both share options and shares and at the taxation laws which put a taxation penalty on employees who receive shares at a discount. This is not part of any suggestion that there should be the promotion of packages for the high-fliers, the top managers and so on; I do not wish to confuse this proposal with that. I am suggesting that both for key members of the work force and for the work force generally there can be a great increase in incentive if employees feel that the effort they are putting in, both mental and physical, is investing not only in the enterprise that employs them but also in their own interests. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the evidence brought forward by the Business Council of Australia and others, which shows that, both in the United Kingdom and the United States, companies that go down the employee share ownership track have markedly better performance in terms of appreciation in their value as enterprises and in terms of their profit performance, productivity increases, and so on. Closer to home, there are some very encouraging indications that employee share ownership has provided a significant boost to productivity. I recently visited in Launceston one of the old Repco bearing plant factories. That factory, which is competing with South America and the United States, has seen a 50 per cent lift in output since the employee takeover last year with direct employees receiving 10 per cent of the shareholding. That sort of increase in output, almost all of which is going into export, is precisely what we need to see in every enterprise around Australia if we are to get out of our present difficulties. I commend, therefore, that part of the ASTEC report for the Government's very early consideration and action. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.51) —In the course of debating the Government papers tabled today, the Senate is currently looking at a report to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) entitled Improving Australia's Competitiveness through Industrial Research and Development. My colleague Senator Chaney has just drawn attention to a recommendation relating to investment in the work force, which states: That the Government examine ways of simplifying present regulations to enable greater use of share option schemes and, in particular, allow employees to be taxed upon sale of shares rather than when share options are exercised. While I acknowledge that this matter is in Senator Chaney's area, I support that recommendation. I have, of course, knowledge of and an interest in the Fletcher Jones organisation from Warrnambool in Victoria, perhaps the greatest company in Australia to be owned by its employee work force. I thoroughly recommend to the Government that it look at the way Fletcher Jones and Staff Pty Ltd had to restructure itself in order to comply with the difficulties created by the tax laws. There are other aspects of that report to which I wish to refer also. I refer in particular, in regard to research and development, to the paragraph which states: The Government has made a considerable effort in recent years to provide direct incentives for industrial R and D. The report continues-I draw attention to the statistic given-as follows: We note, however, that the level of industrial R and D in Australia is still well below that of other OECD nations; in fact, it needs to rise at an annual compound rate of about 25% until the early 1990's to reach the present level of comparable OECD nations. The word `present' is underlined. That statement draws attention to the fact that Australia is very far behind member nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in industrial research and development. I have some worries about the recommendation of ASTEC that the Government recognise the long term nature of research and development and give at least five years notice of any change to the 150 per cent taxation concession for research and development which diminishes its value. I recognise that any government, including a Liberal and National Party government, would have difficulty complying with any such recommendation. Nevertheless, I draw attention to the problem in Australia of the need to increase our expenditure on industrial research and development at an annual compound rate of 25 per cent until the 1990s in order to reach the existing level of comparable OECD nations. I draw attention also to the recommendations in relation to the management and investment companies (MICs). It is strongly rumoured that the Government intends to do away with these companies. In fact, the report almost acknowledges that that will happen when it states, `following the termination of the MIC' technology based companies. The report points out that MICs have been involved in the high risk area of start-up companies, whereas the non-MIC sources have been involved in the shorter term outlook of company expansion. Clearly, as ASTEC points out, the Government needs to monitor closely what might happen as a result of its abandoning the present MIC program. I see that my time has almost expired. As there is much to be debated in regard to this report, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Lewis, I think that Senator Cook also wishes to speak. Senator LEWIS —I hope that Senator Cook will seek leave to continue his remarks later, rather than terminating the debate. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.57) —Mr Deputy President, I will seek leave to continue my remarks later because I think this is an important debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Cook, you have only three minutes in which to speak and if you are interrupted by the sessional order the matter will be placed on the Notice Paper anyway. Senator COOK —In that case, I will take my three minutes. I am glad that the report to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) entitled Improving Australia's Competitiveness through Industrial Research and Development is coming under some scrutiny in the Senate. My purpose in rising to speak, however, is not to go into some of those matters which the last speaker, Senator Lewis, referred to, although they are vitally important. Any effort to improve Australia's research and development output and to maintain the benefits that that creates within the Australian economy is, of course, central to our industry getting the necessary edge it needs to develop further and to penetrate other markets. From a trading point of view we would want to see that occur in order that the industrial strength of Australia is improved to the benefit of its population. That is a vitally important area. My purpose in rising is to respond to some of the remarks made by Senator Chaney when he referred to the employee share recommendation on page 31 of the report. ASTEC recommended: That the Government examine ways of simplifying present regulations to enable greater use of share option schemes, and in particular, allow employees to be taxed upon sale of shares rather than when share options are exercised. I think that the Senate should be aware that the Government, through the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, now the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), has issued a Green Paper on industrial democracy. It has invited comment from industry, unions and other interested groups in the community on several of the propositions set out in the Green Paper in regards to forms of industrial democracy that might apply. One-I emphasise, one-of the propositions suggested for consideration and comment in the wider community concerns the same recommendation made by ASTEC, to which Senator Chaney has spoken. However, it is, and it should only be seen as, one option. The Government at present is considering its response now that the period of comment on the Green Paper has expired and since it has taken the Green Paper through an exhaustive, and some might say torturous, series of consultations with the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the National Labour Consultative Council. One of the points that ought not to be lost in this debate is that on every occasion when employee knowledge of a company's objectives, investment priorities and market targeting increases, employee interest in the activities of the company also increases. Where employees have greater influence over what a company does, the productivity of that company per employee increases. Share ownership or, as in the case of the Solahart company in Western Australia, employee ownership, are ways in which those two questions of greater knowledge and greater influence over the company's objectives can be met. But they are not the only ways. The PRESIDENT —Order! The time for the consideration of Government papers has expired. Senator BEAHAN(Western Australia) —On behalf of Senator Cooney, the Chairman of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I present the eleventh report of 1987 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Administrative Arrangements Act 1987, the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1987, and the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1987. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 12 dated 21 October 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Senator Beahan: That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to: To His Excellency, the Governor-General, May it please Your Excellency We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our most gracious sovereign and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator Devereux, I remind the chamber that this is the honourable senator's maiden speech and I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. Senator DEVEREUX(Tasmania)(6.02) —Thank you, Mr President. In opening my remarks, I must offer an apology on behalf of Tasmanian people to the Senate and to the people of Australia. I really should have been here five months ago. Mr President, I appreciate your indicating that because this is my maiden speech honourable senators should extend the normal courtesies to me. I am well aware of the convention that people should not make provocative remarks and comments when they are making their maiden speech. I do not find that there is any overwhelming burden on me really to abide by that so-called convention. In saying that, I would not expect that people on the other side of the Senate would necessarily have to abide by that convention. I guess it may be that they would feel far more comfortable if they could adopt their more natural position with regard to conventions-the sorts of positions that they took in 1975 and that Robin Gray took recently. I just remind the Senate that in 1975 Lionel Murphy was replaced and Senator Milliner was replaced by Albert Field. During that period we heard some `tut tut' noises from people in this place but that did not stop them from taking advantage of the situation and bringing down a properly elected government. So, Mr President, I do not think there is any great burden on me to abide by any conventions as far as this place is concerned in making my maiden speech. The actions in 1975 gave rise to a referendum which was initiated by a Liberal-National Party government. Quite clearly, the intention of 70 per cent of the Australians who voted in that referendum was that the person appointed to fill a vacancy caused by a resignation from the Senate ought to be a member of the party to which the senator who was resigning belonged. Given that this is what was decided by 70 per cent of the people who voted, it seems to me quite despicable that the Premier of Tasmania took the action that he did with respect to the resignation of Don Grimes. The Premier had no hesitation in subverting the Constitution. In fact, this was much worse than what had been done in the past because, quite clearly, he ought to have followed the spirit of the change that was made to the Constitution and appointed the properly made nomination of the Australian Labor Party. In fact the actions that were carried out at that stage of the proceedings were far worse than anything that had been done in the past. In this instance, not only was the nominee put up by the Labor Party not appointed but also the Premier of Tasmania in fact tried to blackmail me to the extent of saying that, provided I was prepared to follow his dictates and those of the Liberal Party in this place, he would support the nomination. I find it absolutely disgraceful that that sort of activity can go on in parliaments around Australia. It is quite remarkable that there has been a deafening silence on the political scene, particularly in my home State of Tasmania, about that occurrence. I guess that silence is really due to the fact that people want us to believe that, because there was an election, the matter is now solved. Quite clearly in my view the matter is not solved at all. If any State government decides now, under the current Constitution, to act in the same way as Robin Gray did in respect of vacancies in the Senate, the very thing we saw in 1975 could happen. My very strong view is that the matter in Tasmania will never be settled. Technically there is still a vacancy in Tasmania because a decision has never been made by the Tasmanian Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Don Grimes, albeit that an election intervened. It is my very strong view that all parties and all members of both Houses of Parliament ought to adopt a position that an alteration should be made to the Constitution which quite clearly spells out that any senator who resigns should be replaced by the nominee of the party to which the retiring senator belonged. I do not think that the vacancy should be left unfilled. Over the last five months or so since this whole episode started I have been told by people from the other side of this place, `Oh no, we do not support what Robin Gray did. It was quite wrong and you should have been here'. I have heard some of those things said before. But certainly my experience, both as a trade union official and in the political arena, has led me to believe-and it has been a harsh lesson-that just because people say those things, that is not necessarily the course that they follow because when the time comes they can be subject to political expediency. I think it is essential that an alteration be made to the Constitution to prevent that sort of thing happening again. If in fact some of the things that I have heard about this issue from people on the other side were true, I guess I would be saying to myself, `I wonder why I stood and came to this place in the first place'. I became a trade union official and then stood for a position in political life because I supported equal rights for people. I support people's rights to equality in education and employment. I certainly have a very strong view about the use of our natural resources and the position we ought to be adopting on them for the betterment of everybody in this country. Having listened to some of the speeches in this place over the last five or six weeks, I thought back to the issue in Tasmania. I thought, `Well, maybe it's true that in this place there are some people who don't hold the same views as Robin Gray. Maybe they wouldn't do the same things'. Of course, I stopped believing in fairies a long time ago. In fact, as I recall it, I stopped believing in them when I was about five years old. If people look back on their childhood, they probably believed, as I used to believe, in the tooth fairy. I remember quite clearly that one night, after a tooth had fallen out, as had happened previously, I put it in a glass of water on the mantlepiece. On such occasions I would sneak out now and again during the night to see whether the fairy had been. It so happened that this night when I was about five I sneaked out, looked around the door and saw my father fiddling with the glass on the table. I thought to myself, `What is he up to? He's pinching my money'. As it turned out, after I had watched for a little while, I discovered that he was putting sixpence in the glass. I said to myself, `There you go, things aren't quite what they seem'. I must admit that I did not tell my father about this. If he is listening to the broadcast today, he might find out about the day that I stopped believing in the tooth fairy. I was quite often reminded of that event in the course of my career as a trade union official because, as I said, things are not always what they seem. I have been told many times by people during negotiations that they will do certain things, that they are very concerned about workers' rights, and so forth. But the funny thing is that, when it comes down to the wire, that is not what happens. What people say on many occasions is quite false. When I look back over the period of the Senate vacancy and line up what happened then with what happened in this chamber four weeks or so ago, I discover that it is no different here. I refer to the legislation to do with the ID card. Quite clearly the final death of the ID card legislation did not really concern whether one agreed or disagreed with the legislation. What happened regarding the way in which that legislation was destroyed was no different from what was done in Tasmania by Robin Gray. It was simply an exercise. Regardless of how people try to defend the situation, the truth is that for 87 years no piece of legislation was completely destroyed by the Opposition threatening to disallow regulations. So there is no difference between what happened in the course of that debate and what happened in regard to the Senate vacancy. It was simply a matter of people deciding that some political mileage could be made out of an issue. They said, `Let us not worry about the conventions. Let us not worry about all the principles that have applied for 87 years'. That is a very important point. Of course, something very important came out of that debate. Many people in the course of the debate talked about their great commitment to the protection of people's civil liberties and their great commitment to ensuring that there was no tax avoidance or social welfare fraud in this country. I am sure that some people will be hoist with their own petard in the next few months when attempts are made by this Government to do something about tax avoidance and social welfare fraud. I found the position that some honourable senators took on civil liberties during that debate quite amusing, particularly when I heard Senator Bjelke-Petersen talking about the protection of people's civil liberties. As the national president of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU), during the South East Queensland Electricity Board dispute I had occasion to spend some time in Queensland. When I listened to the honourable senator's speech that day, a couple of instances came to my mind. I will give the background to one incident. Some 200 people had been arrested for picketing outside the New Farm depot. I happened to be one of those people and I was due to appear in the Magistrates Court the next day, after spending some hours on that day as a guest of Her Majesty. The next day I was walking through the streets of Brisbane to the Magistrates Court and a young fellow dressed in a pair of jeans and a tatty old jumper pulled me up and flashed a badge in front of me. He told me that he was a police officer and that I was to go over to the other side of the street. I said, `What for?'. He said, `I'm just telling you to go over to the other side of the street'. I said, `Well, it's a bit peculiar. I'm just on my way to the Magistrates Court. What do I have to go over there for?'. He said, `I'm just telling you to'. I said, `Well, I have some rights. If you're telling me to go somewhere, you can tell me the reason why'. He said, `You've got no rights and if you don't go over there you'll be arrested'. In fact, that is exactly what he did. It took me about another 12 hours to get to the Magistrates Court. When I got there 12 hours late and appeared before the magistrate, I still did not know what I was charged with. It turned out that I was charged with taking part in a procession which was not a funeral. Anyway, we live and learn. On the same day as 200 people were arrested at the New Farm depot, a number of our officials from around Australia were attending that picket. One of our Victorian organisers was some 200 metres away from the entrance to the depot and was talking to five or six members of the ETU. They were having quite an amiable discussion. A police officer told the official to leave them alone. The six people said, `Well, he is doing no harm'. The official said, `Look, they are members of ours, they are quite happy to talk to me and I have some rights to talk to my membership'. I guess the answer from the police officer summed it up. He said, `You've got no rights here in Queensland. You're under arrest'. With that background, Mr President, I think you could well understand my amusement when I heard certain people here talking about civil liberties and people's rights. I do not propose to say anything more about that subject. I think I may well have made the point. Before I move on to a couple of matters dealing with my home State, there is one matter that is gaining some notoriety at the moment about which I would certainly like to comment-that is, the proposal that is floating around about a wealth inquiry. I place on record that I strongly support a wealth inquiry. In fact, I certainly agree with Bill Kelty's statement that we probably do not need an inquiry, that we ought to have a wealth tax anyway. I would prefer that there be an inquiry because I believe that that inquiry would reveal a couple of things that the public of Australia ought to be well aware of. I find it quite difficult to swallow the fact that, from 1984 to 1986, the accumulated wealth of the 200 richest people in Australia has increased from $7.3 billion to $14.8 billion-more than a 100 per cent increase. I am sure that the working people of Australia also find it very difficult to swallow that fact when they-and it is a fact-have lost 7 per cent of their take home earnings. There ought to be an inquiry into how that situation could come about when we are all being asked to tighten our belts. I think that that is a very important factor that would come out of the inquiry. We ought also to be investigating just how some of those people came to have that money in the first place. A very important question is raised. It makes me feel quite ill when I hear some of those people or their agents having the audacity to say that unemployed people, people with low paid jobs, those on pensions and so forth are bludgers. How much work have some of those 200 people who say those things about good honest Australians really done for that money? I suggest that an inquiry would reveal that they have not done much work at all. I doubt that many of them-I would not want to say `any of them'-have even stood very close to a worker. It is wrong that that sort of thing goes on and that sort of wealth is accumulated without some sort of inquiry into the matter. I want to have clearly placed on record my support for that inquiry. In my experience as an ETU official, I was very much involved at both national and State level with industrial development, particularly the trade training aspects of industrial life and people in the work place. I see my position as a senator as simply an extension of that. In this place, and particularly in my home State, I will be strongly pursuing some of the objectives in those areas that I pursued as a trade union official. I particularly welcome one of those things in regard to education. I find it very welcome that there will be some changes, particularly in the training of people in the workplace, with much more relevance to the needs of industry. For a long time, there has been a myth abroad that all of the demarcation issues in industry were simply caused by workers. Anyone who has spent any time in industry would know that the truth is that many of the problems of demarcation were created by the system that has been built into industry for a long time. I am not saying that workers and unions were not responsible for some of that, but very largely the sort of hierarchy set-up in industry has been just as much, if not more, the fault of industry and the management of industry. I welcome the change there, and I hope that, through the changes going on at the initiative of this Government, a much wider opportunity will be granted for people to gain more skills in industry. Another thing that I am doing at the moment is to initiate in Tasmania a seminar, to be held on 12 November, of which the theme is the role that education, industry, trade unions and the Government can play in industry development. I think that it will be an important seminar for Tasmania. It is unfortunate that there has been a much greater degree of activity in this area in other States, while there has been a great neglect of such a co-operative approach in Tasmania. I hope that, in running the seminar, I can start some real movement in the State and get true co-operation between people to improve the performance of Tasmania. In the use of our natural resources and manufacturing in the State, our record has been abysmal, particularly over the last few years. There are a few lights on the horizon. In particular, the unions have for some time been pushing Comalco Aluminium (Bell Bay) Ltd. The company has agreed to go in for some downstream production at its aluminium plant. This initiative has really come from the workers and the trade unions in the plant. I hope that that will expand enormously in the future, and I think that it will be a great lift for Tasmania. We are also talking to the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd about a large plant, and I hope that in the future there will be some movement. The EZ company, through the research and development grants of the Federal Government, has made a lot of improvements, with a pilot plant being set up. More particularly, in the area of downstream processing, it has an enormous research and development plant, which unfortunately many people in Tasmania do not seem to be aware of. Also unfortunately, many of its products, while at the state of being commercially viable, are not yet produced commercially in Tasmania. I have been working with other people to try to encourage the company, if not to go into the downstream processing itself, to assist in setting up some other companies around the State to start producing some wealth for Tasmania out of our natural resources. I want to close on an area that has been a source of great debate in Tasmania, as I am sure that everyone here is aware. I refer to the great waste of our forestry resources over the years. Regardless of what is said, there has been enormous waste in the forest industry in Tasmania. I think that the Federal Government should be applauded for setting up the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into logging in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests area of Tasmania, which, if nothing else, will assist in doing something about the enormous waste that has been going on. To highlight that waste, I can do no more than read out a letter published in the Mercury on Monday, 28 September, 1987. I ought to read that letter to the Senate because it is very important. If I or some other people were to make some of the points in the letter, they would be immediately construed as coming from somebody on the left wing of the Labor Party or somebody in the Wilderness Society. However, this letter came as a result of meetings that were held in Hobart between people who worked in the forestry industry such as small sawmill owners, people in the woodcraft industry and furniture makers. As a result, a small sawmiller named Darrell Brown took a number of members of the Woodcraft Guild on a tour of the Mountain River area. To finish my contribution, I will read that letter, which is signed by Antony De Lara, the president of the Woodcraft Guild. He said: At the invitation of Darrell Brown, an operator of a small sawmill at Mountain River, about 30 members of the Woodcraft Guild Tasmania spent an afternoon viewing the logging operations taking place in the Russell River area. We were dismayed to note the large quantity of minor species timbers such as myrtle, sassafras, leatherwood, etc, which had simply been felled and burnt on the ground for no other reason than to provide a seed bed for the replanting of eucalypts. Within a few metres of the edge of the coupe, Mr Brown showed us a felled and burned myrtle, the timber of which was a deep red and which before borer insects had got into it would have been capable of yielding at least 400 super feet of furniture grade timber probably worth, as completed items, in excess of $5,000. A few paces from the myrtle he showed us a sassafras log which had started to rot because it was felled about 18 months ago. Before the rot set in that single log, as finished tourist souvenir items, must have been worth $3,000 to $4,000 to the Tasmanian economy. The coupe concerned exhibited very few eucalypt stumps, the trees for which it was presumably logged, but there was a very large number of felled and burned minor species trunks strewn around. When asked why the area had been logged in the manner in which it had been, an accompanying senior Forestry Commission officer, who is also a guild member, replied he did not know because logging did not come within his area of responsibility. That statement highlights the whole problem within our forests so far as specialised timbers are concerned. There is no department within the Forestry Commission or elsewhere which is specifically responsible for the care, maintenance and harvesting of Tasmania's beautiful and increasingly rare so-called minor species timbers. The commission's whole orientation is towards the logging and replanting of eucalypts. Our host pointed out to us that far from there being 20 years' supply of our specialised timbers available within the Huon region as we had supposed, there are, unless very drastic action is taken concerning the manner in which the area's old growth mixed forests are logged, as little as three years' supply left. The Woodcraft Guild would like to repeat and emphasise its call for a moratorium on the logging of old growth mixed forest with less than 50 per cent eucalypt canopy cover until such time as a specialised timber industry plan has been drawn up and implemented. The need for such a moratorium and for the establishment of an adequately staffed and financed forestry department with specific minor species timber responsibilities is probably even more urgent than the guild had initially supposed. I do not think I can say any more than that. With that I conclude my remarks and look forward to taking part in debates in this place in the future. The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Chapman, I remind honourable senators that this is his maiden speech in this chamber. I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(6.32) —Mr President, may I commence by congratulating you on your re-election as President of the Senate and indicating that I look forward to contributing to the deliberations of this chamber under your conduct of proceedings. I also note the presence in the chamber of Senator David Hamer and I pass on to him my congratulations on his re-election as Deputy President and Chairman of Committees. Mr President, your call for the traditional courtesies of a maiden speech to be extended to me reminds me that being elected to serve in both Houses of this Parliament at different times is virtually a unique way in which a person can be restored to maidenhood. In passing, it is worth noting that Mr J. R. Odgers, in his celebrated Australian Senate Practice, states that it is a time honoured custom that a new senator making his initial speech to the Senate is heard without interjection or interruption. However, my research shows that this has not always been the case. Although this traditional courtesy appears to have been afforded new senators for some decades, it seems that early in 1968 was the first occasion on which a presiding officer drew attention to the fact that a senator was about to deliver his maiden speech. Somewhat earlier than that, it appears that the tradition of courtesy had not yet been established. I refer to the maiden speech of my grandfather's cousin, Senator John Hedley Chapman, in the Senate in 1926. His speech received several interruptions by way of interjection, albeit apparently helpful in nature. It is therefore of some interest to see how the tradition of this courtesy has developed to the stage where someone such as me, who was initially afforded the privilege of delivering a maiden speech in the House of Representatives almost 12 years ago, is afforded that opportunity a second time by returning to this Parliament, in a different chamber, after an absence of some 4 1/2 years. I valued the opportunity to represent the people of the south-western suburbs of Adelaide as member for Kingston in the House of Representatives for some 7 1/2 years from 1975 and look forward to that experience, combined with further experience of private enterprise gained over the last 4 1/2 years in what some would call the `real world', equipping me to make an effective contribution to the policy and issue deliberations of this chamber. I must say that it is a particular pleasure to have been elected to the Senate at this time and thereby have an opportunity to serve in this historic chamber before the move to the new Parliament House next year. It is also satisfying to rejoin so many of my colleagues who were first elected with me at the 1975 election and, in particular, Senators Michael Baume and Short, who, like me, following defeat after several terms in their marginal lower House seats, have returned to service in the Senate. I well recall the despair we '75ers caused the Labor Opposition as their initial taunts of `oncers' had to be changed to `twicers' and in the case of so many of us `thricers'. It is also a privilege to have the opportunity to serve in the same chamber as the earlier Senator Chapman to whom I referred and also a cousin of my mother's by marriage, Senator Edmund Piesse, who represented Western Australia in this place in the early 1950s, and of course to be here with my present cousin a couple of times removed, Senator Baden Chapman Teague. This comes close to matching the cousins Baume, who surround me closely at the moment, but, of course, falls short of the brothers McGauran in the present Parliament. I come to this place determined, firstly, to do effectively my job as a senator, recognising that the Senate is the last institution in Australia capable of ensuring that the Executive governs through the Parliament, rather than by decree, Press release, ordinances or regulations. I will resist any attempts to dilute the power, role and responsibility of the Senate as an effective House of review. In particular, the recent suggestions by the Constitutional Commission to limit the Senate's power over legislation to that of delay only, should not be countenanced. To equate this democratically elected chamber with the hereditary and nominated House of Lords lacks all logic. Secondly, I come to this chamber as a South Australian, elected to this States House with the responsibility of representing South Australia. Notwithstanding the apparent decline of the Senate as a States House, if senators remain mindful of the constitutional intent of this chamber, it can continue to play a role in providing more effective representation for the less populous States than is possible simply through their House of Representatives representation. In proportionate terms, the representative role of senators is much more important to the smaller States than it is to New South Wales or Victoria. Thirdly, I come to this chamber as a Liberal, both by philosophical inclination and by party identification. I am grateful to those members of the Liberal Party State Council in South Australia who made the judgment to support my preselection for the fourth position on the South Australian Liberal Senate ticket for the recent Federal election, and will do my best to fulfil the expectations which they have of me in representing the Liberal Party. I also thank the many thousands of Liberal Party members and supporters whose hard work throughout that election campaign ensured the election of my colleagues and me. It was no fault of theirs that the ultimate prize of winning government eluded us. My Liberal philosophy is derived from that of the traditional English Liberals, such as Hume, Burke and Adam Smith, rather than that of the so-called European Liberals. Spontaneity and the absence of coercion are the hallmarks of this Liberal philosophy, with its commitment to limiting the extent to which Government interferes with the lives of individuals, including their economic lives. Liberal parliamentarians must not succumb to the temptation which elected office provides to override these basic Liberal principles, often for the best of motives. In the context of being a senator, a South Australian and a Liberal, it is appropriate to direct my remaining comments to a subject which received brief reference in the opening speech by His Excellency and coincidentally was part of the subject matter I addressed in my very last speech in the House of Representatives, on what subsequently turned out to be the very last sitting day of the Thirty-second Parliament, 14 December 1982, with the 1983 election having been called during the subsequent summer recess. That subject matter is Australian industrial relations structures and practices, the reform of which I believe to be the single most important issue facing this nation. The rigidities and coercion involved in our present structure are inconsistent with liberalism and detrimental to the interests of small States like South Australia, which require greater labour market flexibility to enable them to compete on interstate and overseas markets, and therefore are appropriate for consideration in fulfilling the review role of a senator. During my 4 1/2 years away from this place I have watched with interest the new-found `stay in government at any cost' pragmatism of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), which, in pursuit of electoral popularity, has seen it move, or create the illusion of moving, close to the Liberal Party in many areas of policy. However, the one area in which, for the sake of this country's economic health, it has been most important for the Government to move towards the Liberal Party and modernise its approach, but which it has completely failed to do, is in the field of industrial relations. It is the field of industrial relations which continually reminds us that, whatever illusions this Government may create about itself, it remains the creature of the trade union movement and its political purpose is to do that movement's bidding. This explains the bizarre behaviour of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. This fervent republican swore undying allegiance to his Queen. He vowed that, as ever in the past, he would do anything and everything his Queen told him to do. It turned out that he had another faulty earplug. He though that they were saying `Crean', not `Queen'. During the life of this Government we have seen two analyses of our industrial relations structure and practices undertaken with Government support-firstly, the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems and, more recently, the document Australia Reconstructed. Both of these documents ignore present day realities by reinforcing the continuation of our present outmoded and failed system. Indeed, the Government sought to further entrench this system through the industrial relations legislation introduced in the latter part of the last Parliament, based on the recommendations of the Hancock report. Such was the fury this legislation generated among the growing number of people who recognise the need for drastic change that it was temporarily shelved. But the recent publication of Australia Reconstructed demonstrates that the unions' push for the further entrenchment of their privileged position is again on the Government's agenda. Professor Richard Blandy of the National Institute of Labour Studies at Flinders University has accurately described the Hancock report on industrial relations as `the last hurrah of the past, rather than a blueprint for the future'. It is a product of the cosy industrial relations club which dominated Hancock Committee membership and establishes no relevant truths about the merits of Australia's present industrial system. Instead, it reflects the conservatism, risk aversion and values of the club. It reflects the fact that industry peak councils, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and tribunals have become a common interest group, concentrating on short term compromise solutions rather than tackling basic problems and longer term issues. The report attempts to set in concrete our outdated 80-year-old system of industrial relations. Professor Blandy describes the Committee's recommendations as `defuturising'-a term derived from the famous Dutch sociologist, Fred Polak, who said: . . . a retreat from constructive thinking about the future, in order to dig oneself into the trenches of the present. It is a ruthless elimination of future-centred idealism by today-centred realism. We have lost the ability to see any further than our collective nose. The Hancock report fails completely to make a positive case for our arbitration system. It does not tell us how, or even if, its proposals will correct the major defects of our present system, which are the lack of productivity related wage levels and the high level of industrial disputation. Nor does it indicate a path to faster innovation and more vigorous entrepreneurship, to higher productivity, to lower unemployment and inflation and, in general, to a better Australia for us all. It resigns itself to the tyranny of the status quo, because that is what the unions want and neither the Government nor the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is sufficiently independent of the unions. It completely fails to address what ought to be the proper extent of union power in Australia. On the contrary, the Committee has chosen to accentuate the power of the unions in Australia by advocating the removal of all remaining legal sanctions against unions, retaining for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission only an H-bomb equivalent, of union deregistration for persistent disobedience. While failing to substantiate its own advocacy of the present system, the Hancock report dismisses the arguments for change on the basis that they have not met the requirement of demonstrating definite and decisive advantages. But it never states the required standard of proof, particularly with regard to a decentralised and deregulated alternative system. This resistance to necessary modernisation is reinforced by the report Australia Reconstructed. Although this has been promoted as a document of the ACTU, which has, in fact, endorsed the report, the most frightening aspect is that it was sponsored by this Labor Government and written by public servants at taxpayers' expense. When it is understood that a major part of the work was undertaken by Mr Ted Wilshire of the Trade Development Council, it is not hard to understand its analysis and conclusions. Ted Wilshire has been closely associated with Ted Wheelwright, one of the founders of the Marxist political economy course at the University of Sydney, which is often referred to as the Bessy degree. In drafting this document, Wilshire would have received much support for his old guard left wing views from some of the other members of the joint ACTU-Trade Development Council mission that visited Europe in preparing this document. These include Tom McDonald of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, the successor to Pat Clancy of the pro-Soviet Communist Party; Laurie Carmichael of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, ex-communist and born-again socialist; and Colin Cooper of the left wing Australian Telecommunications Employees Association. Indeed, a member of the ALP has suggested to me that Australia Reconstructed is simply the left wing's prescription for gaining more power, while people like Carmichael and Halfpenny are chasing more Government money for their industry, the metal trades industry, which their activities helped to destroy in the 1970s and early 1980s. The words of the present Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) to the 1986 ALP biennial conference in Hobart are pertinent. He said: I say this to the George Campbells and others. They carry the jobs of dead men around their necks in the manufacturing industry with the $39 a week in the metal trades agreement in 1981. The report is purportedly based on investigations carried out in Europe, but it does a good job of rewriting the economic history of Europe, as well as the recent economic history of Australia, before drawing its conclusions and recommendations from that rewritten history. Its implementation would embody the worst excesses of the corporate state of big government, big unions and big business. It is, therefore, not surprising that it is shot full of contradictions. While purporting to recognise the need for wage adjustments to be made on the basis of `price and productivity movements in the internationally traded goods and services sector', this is contradicted in the same breath by limiting it to wages other than national adjustments under the centralised wage system. At page 91 the report says: Australian industry assistance traditionally relied on barrier protection-tariffs, bounties, import quotas. It is now widely accepted that this assistance contributed to an uncompetitive manufacturing industry. However, in recommendation 1.6 concerning the establishment of a national development fund based on superannuation contributions, it says: . . . if insufficient funds are available through the superannuation mechanism, there should be a one per cent tax on all imports supplemented by a surcharge on luxury imports. Recommendation 4.5 says, in part, . . . skills accords should be negotiated at the local and enterprise level. However, this hint at decentralisation is stopped dead in its tracks by the recommendation that for the national employment and training fund, which is to be financed by a tax on companies, the trade union movement be given an effective veto over which companies will be allowed to draw training funds from the fund. Agreement must be reached with the unions-and, it should be emphasised, with the unions, not the employees-on matters such as superannuation, disputes settlement procedures, work and management practices, job security and even purchasing policy before such funds would be available to the company. Chapter by chapter, the analysis and recommendations of Australia Reconstructed resurrect old left wing shibboleths. Who said the 1970s were dead? Donald Horne has arisen, like Skyhooks or Jimi Hendrix, with a sequel to the sequel to The Lucky Country, with a statement last week finding nothing but virtue in Australia Reconstructed. But, of course, Professor Horne is Chairman of the Australia Council. His job is to promote Australian fiction. In proposing the establishment of a national development fund, the authors demonstrate their complete lack of understanding of the nature of investment. The history of national economic plans and centralised economic decision-making is that they lead to inferior economic results. At page 93, the report states: If industry is to make substantial commitments on investment and employees are to undertake appropriate skills development, it is essential that firms and individuals are able to plan ahead with certainty. Surely the events of the past few days on international share markets demonstrate the impossibility of planning ahead with anything remotely like certainty. This is why decentralised decision-making in economic affairs is essential. The last thing the Australian economy needs in its present situation is a series of five-year economic plans whereby national goals and decisions are determined by powerful representatives of big government, big unions and big business under a corporate state mentality. In its approach to wages policy, the report ignores the need for all wage determinations to be based on productivity and international competitiveness. In addition, by trying to compress wage relativities, the Australian Council of Trade Unions will obscure a crucial mechanism for delivering signals to individuals to adjust their economic activity. Changes in wages and prices promote restructuring quickly and efficiently. Yet in advocating the approach of Australia Reconstructed the ACTU, while purportedly keen to restructure the Australian economy, seems intent on fudging these signals and instead is proposing to direct change through taxes and subsidies determined by committees. The recommendations concerning the implementation of industrial democracy programs represent a further union grab for power. Consultation with employees and their industrial representatives is good management practice which can be highly beneficial to an enterprise, but this is a far cry from unions becoming an integral part of the business decision-making process, which Australia Reconstructed seeks. This would make it increasingly difficult for management to make decisions against the wishes of the trade unions. The recommended creation of 20 super-unions is directly contrary to an expansion of enterprise-level employee participation. It is unreasonable to expect employers to introduce industrial democracy programs at the enterprise level, when the unions intend amalgamating into super-unions which will force the creation of bigger employer groups, more centralised negotiation and arbitration and make the system more remote from the individual requirements and peculiarities at the enterprise level. The prerogative of management to manage an enterprise must not be subverted. The sad fact is that both the Hancock Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems and Australia Reconstructed fail to offer adequate solutions to our industrial problems. Fortunately, there is a better way. That is the approach which I first advocated in 1981 and which I am pleased to see was largely adopted by the Liberal Party as its industrial relations policy for the last election. That better way is a more market-oriented system of industrial relations and wage determination. The need for improvement is obvious. Australia's record of industrial disputation remains one of the worst in the world and continues to be a disincentive for productive investment both from internal and overseas sources. The advocacy nature of our present industrial relations structure heightens the atmosphere of conflict, rather than co-operation, between employers and employees. The concept of comparative wage justice, with wage determinations in one sector of industry flowing on to other sectors and individual enterprises, irrespective of their capacity to pay, hinders economic growth. Conflict between Commonwealth and State awards leads to strained employer-employee relationships, especially when these complexities impinge on one employer. Impediments to change, whether they be lack of political will, the influence of the industrial relations club or the unfounded fear that a more decentralised, deregulated system would lead to industrial anarchy must be overcome. The changes to be implemented must recognise that in the post-industrial society there is a movement to small scale organisation, with modern technology and entrepreneurship meaning that smaller scale production units have become more viable relative to larger scale mass production. Our industrial relations system must therefore incorporate greater flexibility to encourage productivity growth. This requires a more decentralised system of wage determination, to allow direct negotiations and agreements to be reached, between employer and employees, acting at the individual enterprise level. The individual must be allowed to accept employment, if he so desires, at a market level of remuneration, rather than being forced to accept unemployment as the alternative. Wage determination must be based on a combination of national productivity and Australia's international competitiveness, with the individual capacity to pay at the enterprise level. Highly profitable enterprises should share those profits with the employees who have assisted to create them, but less profitable enterprises should not be sent broke by being saddled with wage structures they cannot afford. To encourage this and generally to ensure an improvement in employer-employee relations, the present craft basis for our trade union structure must be replaced, not with super-unions, but with an enterprise-based structure. This must be linked to voluntary union membership, which would be the greatest incentive for unions to genuinely represent their members' views rather than those of the union leadership. While unions must have the capacity to effectively represent their members, they currently have too much power. This must be curbed by ensuring that employers and unions are equal before the law. Recent events reinforce the vulnerability of the Australian economy and, with it, our standard of living and way of life. A change to our system of industrial relations is central to the necessary goal of greater national productivity. It is my contention that the changes I have outlined will do much to achieve that improvement. However, they will not be achieved overnight, nor can they all be achieved by legislative fiat. A great deal must be achieved by a marked change in attitude, especially among militant trade union leaders, to allow greater co-operation between employers and employees, in the recognition that they do have common interests and must develop unity of purpose. I trust I will see this necessary change implemented before too many years of my period of service in this chamber have passed. Before concluding, may I congratulate other newly-elected senators who have made their maiden speeches during this Address-in-Reply debate. May I also pay tribute to those senators from the coalition side who retired at the last election. Senators Collard, Townley, Jessop, Carrick, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Withers were all well known to me as colleagues during my previous period of service. I valued their friendship and counsel during that time. They each made effective contributions to the welfare of Australia during extended periods of service, the latter three serving with distinction as Ministers of the Crown. I pay particular tribute to my former South Australian colleague, Senator Don Jessop, who like me, served in both Houses of this Parliament and as a senator was a stout defender of the Senate's constitutional role. He played a key role in this Parliament in advocating the allocation of greater resources, especially by the private sector, to industrial research and development, particularly while Chairman and Deputy Chairman of what was then the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment. I understand that his services as resident optometrist will be sorely missed by aging senators and members. In conclusion, I thank the staff of the Senate for the assistance they have extended to me on my return to Parliament. They have ensured that the transition back into parliamentary life has been smooth. I also thank the Senate for the courtesy it has extended in hearing me and trust that my remarks did not transgress the traditions by being unduly provocative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Panizza I remind honourable senators that this is his maiden speech in this chamber. I ask that he be afforded the usual courtesies. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(6.57) —As I rise to talk to this chamber for the first time, I ask you, Mr Deputy President, to pass on to the President my congratulations on his re-election. I also congratulate you, Mr Deputy President, on your re-election. I would like to thank the Clerk of the Senate, the Usher of the Black Rod and everyone else for the welcome and kindness extended to all honourable senators who come here for the first time. I also thank you, Mr Deputy President, for the courtesy you have asked to be extended to me regarding my maiden speech. I will try not to be too controversial but, should I go over those bounds, I invite those senators on the other side of the chamber to feel free to interject. I hasten to say that I am mainly extending that offer to new senators on the other side. I wish to thank the Liberal Party of Western Australia for the opportunity for me to realise the ambition I have had since I was 20 years old-to be elected to this chamber. My interest in the Senate probably arose when I studied Latin history, the Roman senate and so on. And a double dissolution sometime during the 1950s really showed where the ultimate power was. I certainly knew then that this was the place to get to. We had great politicians in the past who enkindled my ideas. I refer to Sir Robert Menzies, and Sir Charles Court from Western Australia. Before I got here I had a lot of other missions to carry out along the way: helping to consolidate a family business; an extensive interest in industry affairs; raising a family; educating a family; and being involved in local government for 12 years. I also believe that a man must show that he can manage his own affairs and preferably risk his own dollar before offering himself for higher office and thereby shaping the future of other people. Just two years ago I was approached by the Liberal Party of Australia to be a candidate for a seat in the upper House of Western Australia. The point was that that seat had been held by the same person, a member of the National Party of Australia, for 24 years and he was popular everywhere, or he thought he was. I took on the seat because no one else was game to be led to the slaughter. However, as I have always stood for free enterprise and as the inland areas of Western Australia had been getting a hiding from successive governments, I decided to give it a go. History shows that after only three weeks of campaigning and 18,000 kilometres on my speedometer I finished up about 115 votes short. The previous member was elected and I was not. It was suggested by party supporters that I should then look at the Senate. When the time came I nominated and I was lucky enough to finish up with No. 3. My joy was short lived because along came a double dissolution. Despite the fact that Western Australia already had five Liberal senators, the Party was of the opinion that we could get six up. At this stage Senator Withers decided to retire. I must pay tribute to the great work that he did in this chamber for Western Australia. In case anyone is wondering how he is enjoying his retirement, he is not. That means that he has not retired. He has returned to the Bar in Perth and, no doubt, extends his regards to everyone who is still here. At the second preselection I was given the No. 5 spot, which was almost an assurance of election. At that election the Western Australian team consisted of Senator Durack, Senator Chaney, Senator Crichton-Browne, Senator Knowles, Dr Alan Eggleston and young Cam Tinley and me and I consider that to be the most balanced Liberal team that has ever fronted up for Western Australia. I pay tribute to Dr Alan Eggleston and young Cam Tinley, who fought such a great campaign and did not get here. Anyone who does not know Dr Eggleston will get to know him after the next Federal election because he will be here then. As I have said, he is a doctor of medicine and is an institution in the north-west. He does all the other things that one has to do to keep the north-west going and takes an interest in the Royal Flying Doctor Service. He is not very tall. Every time he goes up to a microphone he has to stand on a box. But when honourable senators have the pleasure of meeting him they will know what he is all about. Generally, at about this stage in a maiden speech, it seems to be quite usual for one to mention the tie that one is wearing or the lack of a tie. I decided to wear my old boys tie today. I am an old boy of a college in Perth called the Aquinas which has turned out many good politicians. There were three old boys in the Liberal Senate team-Senator Chaney, Senator Durack and me. I am very proud to have been associated with that college. The college I am talking about is probably a little more famous than Perth Modern School, which turned out so many politicians, including Senator Stone. Today my main theme leans towards the importance and future needs of the Western Australian country areas-more precisely, the industries and the people involved in agriculture, mining and fishing in our great State. The agricultural areas are vast and varied and are mainly covered by part of the division of Kalgoorlie, the division of O'Connor, which honourable senators have all heard of, the division of Forrest, and parts of the divisions of Brand and Moore. The main activities are wheat growing, sheep and wool, and cattle, both beef and diary. I consider that there is still a future for the wheat growing industry even though we have had downward pressure as a result of the United States of America subsidising sales to Russia. Mr Acting Deputy President, we do not need a parliamentary deputation to go to America at our expense to tell us that that is the reason why prices are down. We know this. On the visit I made last year to the European Common Market I found that people were blaming the Americans anyhow. Furthermore, I was informed and I worked it out for myself that Europe, having seen starvation during the war, was not going to be caught again. We have to solve our own problems. Alleviation of upward pressures on import costs is a top priority. We should remove such impositions as all duties on fuel used for farm production and transport of produce. Let Australia buy superphosphate at world prices and remove tariffs from imported chemicals and items of plant that are not manufactured in Australia. We should make government railways compete on the open market and do away with the inefficiencies, in all transport, perpetuated by outmoded regulations. We should put into action any positive recommendations of the royal commission into grain handling and we should look at the notoriously inefficient and unreliable waterfront. Because of the up and down nature of the seasons in Australia, we have had in the past a balancing system-income equalisation deposits. Somehow, one way or another, they have disappeared. It is far better to use this system to overcome problems than for governments to have to contribute to relief measures for drought, fire and floods. Management, both financial and on-farm, is of the utmost importance and this has to be built into our education system at all levels. The importance of Western Australian's agricultural industry is borne out by these figures: Western Australia produces about 28 per cent of Australia's wheat, 21 per cent of Australia's wool clip and 9.2 per cent of its meat products. In total, Western Australia accounts for some 15 per cent of all Australia's agricultural products of $16.7 billion. This is despite the fact that we employ only 12.3 per cent of the 390,000 men and women working in agriculture and industries supplying the agriculture industry. This is quite an achievement, bearing in mind that our soil types are below those of the rest of Australia. The wool industry seems to be going through a high phase-this was certainly recognised in the Budget-with the market having peaked and retracted to some 12 per cent in the last few weeks. I consider that the growers are getting paid only what they should have been paid over the last few years but for the devalued dollar. There is a future in wool because, if overseas processors are paying only what they are supposed to be paying, bearing in mind the devaluation, I cannot see them going back to synthetics, especially with the oil prices starting to move again. The meat trade has taken a battering this year because of the pesticide scare. Any danger to health because of tainted meat should be of major concern and everything should be done to clear our name. The industry has asked for help and it should be helped to rectify the situation. I cannot live with replies such as, `Taxpayers' money cannot be used for this purpose'. Farmers are not the only ones who pay tax and they are not the only ones who benefit from the meat. Of every dollar that comes in from meat the producer gets 48 1/2c, the abattoir gets about 2 1/2c, the retailer gets 43c, the transporter gets about 2c, the agent gets about 3c and the Government gets 1.4c. So it does not all go to the farmer. There must be more research into soil testing and on-farm testing of cattle and sheep in suspected areas before they go to the abattoirs. It is too late when they go down the chute. As I have already said, the pesticide scare is not a problem solely for the farmer. The responsibility must be shared by manufacturers, by State governments, which gave approval for the use of pesticides, and by the Federal Government, which got tariff revenue from them in the past. The main problem that has to be overcome is the perceived disadvantage. Of probably half a million pieces of meat that go overseas one or two might be picked up as tainted. That is used as an excuse to downgrade all our meat, especially in price. I now turn to the mining industry. It generates 60 per cent of exports from Western Australia. It is facing a growing list of problems despite an exceptionally strong performance by some sectors. Minerals and processed minerals worth some $5.4 billion were produced in Western Australia during 1986. This was achieved by increases in output of most major commodities in the face of falling world prices. The international metal price index was down 11 per cent on the previous year. The weaker Australian dollar compensated to a certain extent for that fall but it also increased costs and the net result was another year of inadequate profits. The outlook is for more of the same. The major exception is the gold section of the industry, which is currently going through a high in terms of Australian dollar prices. This industry sector has increased annual revenue in Western Australia from $150m to $1,000m during the last five years. There have been noises in this place and others that a gold tax should be introduced. I would like honourable senators to hear the situation from one who lives right amongst the people involved. I live in Western Australia exactly where agriculture finishes and gold mining starts. A small town Marvel Loch, which, three years ago had 30 people in it now has 1,000 people in it. The gold mining industry distributes money for supplies in country towns that were relying on agriculture, the profitability of which has gone down slightly. In such circumstances no one would dare impose such a tax. After all, the gold tax would be paid only by the very core, whereas all those who surround the industry generate wealth which is taxed and the tax paid to the Federal Government. Future return on investment in the industry is a major concern. During 1986 return on capital invested in the mining industries was less than 5 per cent and the average return over the last six years was only 6 per cent. New capital can be attracted to these areas only if there is a return on the money. The substantial contribution of the export earnings of the industry to underpinning the living standards of all Australians can no longer be assured. Future growth in mineral revenue lies in processing from the raw state to give added value, and this requires new investment. But with the present economic conditions, I cannot see this occurring. The potential value added production can be seen in sections of Western Australian mining such as mineral sands where high commodity prices counter the local adverse conditions. This has encouraged a total investment of $200m in mineral sands production capacity during the last year, including two synthetic rutile plants. Further downstream, processing projects in an advanced stage of planning have the potential to add in excess of $300m per annum in export earnings to the State. The diamond industry also continues to develop opportunities in added value activities. This has taken place against a backdrop of major long term investment in the North West Shelf which brings with it potentially unlimited downstream processing spin-off benefits. It disguises the fact that, by value, some 70 per cent of the State's mineral production is experiencing severe difficulties from reduced market opportunities, falling international prices and rising domestic costs. Major industry sectors affected include iron, nickel and alumina. Add to this the problems in the energy side of the industry caused by the State Energy Commission's large surplus of gas and it is obvious that a significant part of Western Australia's productive capacity is under threat. Western Australia's opportunities lie in developing further processing industries based on primary commodities. That potential can be realised by the siting of new industries in Western Australia, such as the alumina smelter, et cetera. The future of Western Australian mining lies in being able to reduce costs and to increase sales levels in an increasingly competitive world. I now turn to access to land, which is certainly a major issue for the minerals industry. It cannot expand without viable and successful exploration. Making land unavailable for exploration through the creation of restrictions of any kind threatens the future of the industry. The mining industry is not against the creation of national parks, nature reserves, forestry reserves and other classifications which isolate the use of the land for single purposes, but it must have access to be able to explore to see what is the real cost of providing such reserves. In areas such as Kakadu National Park the Federal Government has supported access for studies on Aboriginal and natural issues while denying the mining industry the same right. Australia's existing mines have a limited life and exploration for new mineral deposits is essential to ensure that mining continues. The mining industry in Western Australia views with alarm the amazing degree of concern by the Federal Government for the demands of a very small, vocal section of the conservation movement while it is more and more indifferent to the fate of Australia's export industries. Government policy needs to ensure that the potential of the mining industry is realised. Briefly, the issues to be kept in mind are: minimise costs imposed by government; ensure tariff protection does not push up the cost of major goods and equipment in the production of primary products; support from Austrade; the Government be prepared to take an active interest in dealings with other countries, as in the case of the selling of coal to India. Western Australia has a large fishing industry involving rock lobsters, tuna and prawns. It is going through a rationalisation phase, which has caused a lot of fishing in areas which would not normally be fished. We hope to see more areas opened up in future. It is important that government grants for export market development and research be maintained so that they assist the ongoing development of the fishing industry in general. Mr Deputy President, I think I have shown you from the figures I have cited and the statements I have made that the country areas of Australia are in fact carrying Australia. We are fast getting back on to the sheep's back. This year, when the value of wool exports passes the value of coal exports, we will really be back on the sheep's back. Primary producers do not mind this, but we have to be helped so we can help ourselves. Primary products account for 85.3 per cent of Australia's exports but only 8 per cent of the population is involved in primary industry. So far I have spoken only on the industries of Western Australia; I turn to the people who make up the vast State, from the edge of the cities into the north. Some live in big provincial towns and some in small ones. One of the main drawbacks in living in country areas is education. It should be the right of every child to receive an education up to tertiary level, no matter where he lives. Should country children wish to attend a university or a college of advanced education their families should not have to mortgage themselves or go overboard to allow this; they should have the same opportunities as children in the cities. There are great water deficiencies in the towns of Western Australia. There are the standard facilities of bitumen roads, electricity, television and so on, but water supplies are sub-standard. Western Australia probably led the world in pumping water into isolated areas in the early 1900s with C.Y. O'Connor's scheme, but I am afraid that that progress was not maintained. I know that there was a suggestion from a Western Australian Minister, Mr Ernie Bridge, concerning the use of a scheme like the Australian bicentennial road development program to do something about that water problem. I urge the Government to support such a scheme. Local government plays a big part in country regions of Western Australia. Mr President, as you know, there are three tiers of government in Australia. I consider that local government is the nearest to the people and that for that reason it should be supported. I was very disappointed two years ago when local government's 2 per cent share of personal income tax funding was reduced. I thought that, with the numbers of former local government politicians in the Federal Parliament, local government would be looked after. I would like now to deal with ethnic affairs. I would be remiss if I did not mention that. One thing I will always remember is where I came from. I am the son of Italian migrants. One must put on record the important contribution made to this country by such people. I refer to those who came before and after the First World War, those who came after the Second World War and those who came after the Vietnam War. They came from countries such as Italy, Yugoslavia, Portugal, Greece and Spain. They came from Holland, Germany and a host of other countries. They came to work in the outback. They came to cut sleepers in Queensland, clear bush in the wheat belts of Australia and work in the Port Pirie smelters and in asbestos mines. Their women, who came after, followed them into these harsh conditions. My own father came off a ship in South Australia. There were no welcoming committees in those days. There was no one to find work for these people. They relied on the goodness of organisations such as the Salvation Army, which met them and got them jobs in the country. My father finished up in Broken Hill at the 2,600 feet level. After that he went to Queensland and to Western Australia. These people worked to start a new life and to give their children an opportunity to make it in this country-an opportunity they never had in their former countries. Around Australia are examples of the children of those migrants who have risen to the top. They have reached the top of the professions, business and trades and local government, and some have even come to the Parliament. Those migrants were not always welcome. There was a lot of discrimination and they met with hostility. If the Aboriginal people feel that they are still discriminated against-I know they are-they have my sympathy, because I know what it is like. Mr President, I mention all these things to show that honourable senators opposite are not the only ones who have worked with their hands. Some senators on this side of the House have done so too. Not all farmers were born with a silver spoon in their mouth, although a few eminent farmers may have been. If my children and the children of other farmers become well off it will be because their parents-and nobody else-have worked and provided for them. According to my research, we have for the first time in this Parliament two members, born either in this country or in Italy, of full Italian parentage. One member is Mr Sciacca, a Queensland member of the House of Representatives. I thank him for coming to the Senate tonight to listen to my speech. Even though he is on the other side of the political fence, I congratulate him on his election. I am humble and proud on behalf of all Italian migrants to have achieved the honour of being the first person of Italian parentage to be elected to the Senate. As we move to the celebration of Australia's 200th anniversary I express the hope that we can at last be one nation, whether our skin happens to be green, yellow, black or white and whether we are descended from the convicts, the aristocracy, the Aboriginals or European migrants. Hopefully we can be one people under the same flag which, amongst other things, carries the emblem of the Southern Cross. That is my home town. I have always believed that the Senate should be a House of review and a protector of the States, and in my stay here I will always treat it in that way. I thank members of my family, both immediate and extended, for the help and encouragement they gave me to get here. In a large family partnership such as ours there is much give and take in order to let each partner achieve his or her ambitions. I hope that my time spent here will be of benefit not only to the party that put me here but also to the mighty State of Western Australia. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(7.25) —Mr President, I congratulate Senator Panizza and, indeed, all the other maiden speakers who have sullied themselves this evening. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(7.26) —I want tonight to raise a matter that is of some concern to me. It was brought to my notice by the auxiliary of the Blind Society of the Australian Capital Territory, which has organised a function to be held at the Albert Hall on 24 October-next Saturday. This auxiliary has worked very hard for a long time for this very important money raising function, which is to be a cavalcade of historic fashion presented by the Sydney North Shore Cavalcade Group. The auxiliary made the arrangements more than 12 months ago. At that time, on 5 September 1986, it set about making a booking with the Albert Hall, which was to cost $18 per hour to hire. A deposit of $50 was paid at that time. Since then the fee has risen-this is not specially relevant to the story but it is relevant to the auxiliary's finances-to $26 per hour. The auxiliary was instructed to confirm the booking by phone on 2 September 1987-some 12 months later. On that date, and not before, the auxiliary was told that it would need a licence to serve supper in the premises. It applied for a licence on 9 September by filling in a form obtained from the health surveillance centre in Curtin. Some three weeks went by and no licence was received. This caused the women of the auxiliary some concern. They started to make their food and to prepare for the occasion. They now have much food stored in fridges and freezers for the supper. On 15 October, still not having received the licence, the treasurer called at the Curtin office to collect it and was told that it would be issued on the day of the function. However, she was told, also for the first time, that they were not to serve home cooked food and had the options of cancelling the supper arrangements, preparing food at the hall or buying commercial food. This, of course, has caused considerable hardship to members of the organisation who, as I said, have already done the cooking for their supper. They contacted the department which issued the catering licences, and were told that these conditions did apply, even though they had not been so informed at the time the reservation was made. I have a copy of the form relating to the reservation and the bookings. I have read through the general conditions and find that there is no mention of this particular regulation. One of my members of staff contacted an officer of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority and spoke to him, even asking on what date the regulations came in. She was not impressed with the response which was, first, laughter, then whistling and then the reply that the regulation had applied since 1930. My staff member reports to me that the officer was rude and unhelpful and had stated that it was for the sake of the public health that a licence had to be issued. No one is arguing that public health is not important. It may be that this regulation has been in existence since 1930, but I can assure you, Mr President, that I know of functions held at the Albert Hall for which a substantial amount of the food has been prepared before and brought to the place by the organisation concerned. In fact, Mr President, I invite you to inspect the cooking facilities at the Albert Hall where you will see that there would be no possibility of putting on any substantial function using the facilities there, as they have not been upgraded for a very long time. The impact of this is quite significant for members of the Blind Society. They have had to leave in the freezer the food that they prepared and make arrangements for commercial food to be brought in, which will significantly affect the profit that they will be able to make. It seems extraordinary to me that we cannot have arrangements whereby people using this hall can bring their own food. It seems extraordinary to me that they should be told of this decision just a matter of a few weeks before the function and not at the time they made the reservation for the hall in September 1986. I hope that the Minister on duty, Senator Gareth Evans, will bring this matter to the attention of the people in the relevant department with a view to seeing that facilities like the Albert Hall are available in a meaningful way for people in Canberra and that regulations will allow people to serve on the premises food that they have prepared. They should be able to use the hall for the sort of function that it is meant to be used for-facilitating the raising of funds in this community. I am appalled at the way in which this matter has been handled and at the way this organisation has been treated. I hope that it will not happen again. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(7.31) —in reply-Roll on local government for Canberra once again. I will be happy to refer Senator Reid's latest extravaganza on behalf of her constituents to the relevant Minister. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.31 p.m. The following papers are tabled: Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 239. Copyright Act-Declarations (2) by the Attorney-General under paragraph 10a (1) (b), dated 6 August 1987. Defence Act-By-laws-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 238. Excise Act-Declaration in respect of rebate and amount of rebate in respect of Bass Strait Oil, dated 12 October 1987. Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notice-No. 192-Prohibition on taking prawns East and South of the Wellesley Group of Islands, dated 8 September 1987. Postal Services Act-By-laws 1987-Postal Amendment No. 6. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1987 No. 9-Remuneration and Allowances for holders of public offices, dated 19 August 1987.