Wednesday, 28 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 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from nine citizens), Brownhill (from 998 citizens) and Short (from 50 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 83 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: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 450 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 228 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the proposed Australia Card is an intrusion into the rights of the individual in a free and democratic country. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Government not proceed with this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That 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 49 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: (1) That the Government's proposed Identity Card is the greatest threat to civil liberties in the history of this country; (2) That the I.D. card will be a costly and unnecessary method of attacking tax evasion and social security fraud; and (3) That the proposal will impose yet another bureaucratic burden on the business sector Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject the Government's legislation to introduce the Australia Card or any other identity card system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Senator MacGibbon (from 20 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 MacGibbon (from 571 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 Senators Michael Baume (from nine citizens), Brownhill (from 420 citizens) and MacGibbon (from 267 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 U.S. nuclear naval ships and submarines to destroy all nuclear Soviet naval ships and submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines, naval ships and bombers launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. 3. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear target 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 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 Bjelke-Petersen (from 368 citizens) and Harradine (from 143 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. The present Australia national flag is not distinctively and uniquely Australian and is confused with other national flags. 2. The people of Australia have never had an opportunity to express their views on an appropriate Australian national flag in a referendum. 3. The present Australian national flag does not properly represent Australia as a sovereign, independent nation. 4. The present Australian national flag incorrectly proclaims Australia as a colony, homeland, protectorate, dominion or government department of Great Britain. 5. The first condition in the flag competition of 1901 required that the design should show Australia's loyalty to the British Empire. The British Empire no longer exists. 6. A public opinion poll held in 1984 using the Gallup Method revealed that 52% of Australians surveyed wanted a competition of a new design for the Australian flag. 7. There is no inherent link between Australia proclaiming a unique and distinctive flag and the political issue of Australia moving to a republican form of government. 8. The adoption of a truly Australian national flag would serve as a focal point for Australia's bicentennial celebrations in 1988. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable house will: (a) Appoint a committee of the Parliament with representatives from both Houses and all parties to invite and consider proposals for the design of a new Australian national flag, and (b) Require that Committee to make recommendations on the form of a minimum cost referendum in which the electors will be given the opportunity to vote for a flag from a selection of at least three designs, one of which will be the present Australian national flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 21 citizens). Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —by leave-I present signed ballot forms relating to the introduction of an identity card from 69 citizens of Tamworth, one in favour, 68 against. Petition received. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia) —by leave-I present to the Senate a petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, from 96 citizens praying that the Australia Card Bill be rejected. Petition received. Petitions received. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting I shall move: That the Senate- (a) records its agreement with the view expressed on behalf of the Government by the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Ralph Willis, MP, that `it is quite fundamental to our prospects of economic recovery that we keep increases in our labour costs broadly in line with those of our international trading competitors. Not to do so would jettison the great opportunities provided by the very large devaluation of the Australian dollar and place us in dire economic peril'; (b) notes that increases in our labour costs will, on the Government's own predictions, be substantially in excess of those of our trading competitors; and (c) expresses its disappointment at the Government's failure to understand that the decision to proceed with the National Wage Case on 28 October will contribute to the worsening of the problem the Minister has identified. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator the Hon. Graham Richardson, incurred the wrath of the administration committee of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) which adopted a resolution criticising Senator Richardson for his handling of the Federal Government's proposed nomination for world heritage listing of north Queensland rainforests; (b) joins with the administration committee in condemning Senator Richardson for failing to provide adequate information to the people of Queensland on the effects of his plan to lock up 870,000 hectares of Queensland and put 3,000 people out of a job; and (c) calls on Senator Richardson to recognise the fact that the Queensland Government has instituted responsible forestry management practices which have ensured the conservation of the Queensland wet tropical rainforests. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —The 1986-87 annual report of the Prices Surveillance Authority is tabled, as honourable senators have been advised. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act 1942 and the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Act 1987, and for related purposes. 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) —(10.06)-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I table the explanatory memorandum and 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 clarify and refine the operation of certain provisions in the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Act 1987 (the Ownership and Control Act). That Act, which was introduced in the context of the Government's equalisation scheme for providing additional commercial television services in regional areas, replaced the `two station rule' for commercial television prescribed interests with the `60 per cent population reach' rule. It also introduced new multi-channel service (MCS) and cross-media prescribed interest limits, together with associated directorship limits and provisions to grandfather interests or directorships acquired before specified dates. In the case of the cross-media limits, the prescribed date for the provision of grandfathered protection was 28 November 1986, being the date of the announcement by the previous Minister of the Government's intention to introduce new media ownership legislation. The principal focus of the Bill is the technical operation of the MCS and cross-media grandfathering provisions. I should point out, however, that the amendments in the Bill in relation to the MCS limits and associated grandfathering provisions will have no immediate practical application. Each of the current approved markets for regional commercial television will be proceeding directly to service area aggregation, rather than additional television services being provided by regional stations within their existing service areas under the MCS option. The MCS limits will therefore have practical operation only in the event that a new approved market is declared (in, say, South Australia or Western Australia) and if MCS permits are then issued in respect of licences within that market. The technical operation of each of the amendments in this Bill is explained in some detail in the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I will provide a brief overview of those amendments which related to the cross-media limits and associated grandfathering provisions in the Ownership and Control Act. The cross-media grandfathering amendments are also mirrored in those provisions in the Bill dealing with the MCS grandfathering rules. Service Area Aggregation Perhaps the most important amendments in this Bill are in new sub-sections 27 (6a) and 27 (10) of the Ownership and Control Act (paragraphs 9 (b) and 9 (e) of the Bill). These amendments have the effect of exempting a person who has acquired relevant interests or directorships before 28 November 1986 and who would otherwise contravene the cross-media limits as a consequence of service area aggregation in accordance with the Government's equalisation scheme. The absence of grandfathered protection to cover these circumstances has been a matter of strong concern within the broadcasting industry. The basis of this concern is that it is inequitable to penalise licensees who were involved in service area aggregation in compliance with Government policy and who had held relevant interests before the new cross-media rules were announced by the previous Minister. The provisions in this Bill recognise that these concerns are legitimate and rectify the unintended consequences of the existing grandfathering provisions. Licence Consolidation This Bill also provides for maintenance of grandfathered protection under the cross-media limits where licensees in an approved market elect to have their licences consolidated within a combined service area for the purpose of service area aggregation. The grandfathering provisions of the existing Ownership and Control Act do not take into account the effect of licence consolidation on a person who held grandfathered prescribed interests in one or more of the former licences. New sub-sections 27 (4a)-(4b) of the Ownership and Control Act (paragraph 9 (b) of the Bill) therefore provide for maintenance of grandfathered protection where a grandfathered person continuously held a prescribed interest in one or more of the former licences between 28 November 1986 and the grant of the new consolidated licence. This will ensure that only a person who had grandfathered protection in respect of a former licence will be able to claim protection in respect of the consolidated licence. At the same time, the provision allows sufficient flexibility in corporate restructuring so as to encourage voluntary licence consolidation in accordance with the planning objectives of the Government's equalisation scheme. Acquisition of New Interests After the Grandfather Date The amendment of sub-section 27 (3) of the Ownership and Control Act in paragraph 9 (a) of the Bill confirms that a person will lose grandfathered protection during the period while that person holds any new interests acquired after 28 November 1986, but that the person can regain protection by the subsequent divestment of those interests. During the period while new interests are held, the person will contravene the cross-media interests limit, but will have the benefit of the statutory period of grace provided in the Act (six months, or longer with Australian Broadcasting Tribunal approval) before the contravention becomes an offence. Paragraph 9 (b) of the Bill also introduces new sub-sections 27 (4a)-(4b) of the Ownership and Control Act. These provisions provide a mechanism for regaining grandfathered protection where new `interests' are attributed to a person through the acquisition of shares by another company in the corporate investment chain. Under the existing provisions of the Ownership and Control Act such a person could regain protection only if that other company were to divest the new shares which it had acquired. That other company may not be grandfathered and may have no incentive to take such action. The provisions in this Bill allow a person who is indirectly attributed a new interest to regain protection by subsequently reducing to the percentage shareholding interest which was held in the licensee or newspaper company before 28 November 1986. This is subject, however, to an overall requirement that the person is not in any position to exercise greater control of the licensee or newspaper company than before 28 November 1986. Cross-media Directorships Clause 6 of the Bill includes a drafting clarification to confirm that the cross-media directorship limits in section 92fad of the Broadcasting Act 1942 do not prohibit the holding of a directorship in a single company holding controlling cross-media interests. Such a prohibition in unnecessary because a non-grandfathered company would contravene the cross-media prescribed interest limits in section 92fab of the Broadcasting Act by holding such interests. More importantly, such a prohibition would prevent a grandfathered company from replacing any of its grandfathered directors on their death or resignation, because each replacement director would then be contravening the cross-media directorship limits. The existing provisions of the Ownership and Control Act would also not allow a grandfathered person holding more than one directorship within a grandfathered corporate group to be replaced by another single person. Each of the original directorships would need to be filled by separate replacement directors. This is an unnecessary restriction on the replacement of grandfathered directors because no more cross-media control can be exercised by a director of a company holding grandfathered cross-media interests if the person were also to hold other directorships within the same corporate group. Paragraph 9 (d) of the Bill overcomes this unnecessary restriction by introducing a new sub-section 27 (8a) of the Ownership and Control Act which allows a person who holds a directorship in a grandfathered company also to hold a directorship in any subsidiary of that company without contravening the cross-media directorship limits. Other Matters The Bill also includes other minor drafting improvements to provisions in the Ownership and Control Act. For example, clause 5 of the Bill corrects a technical drafting defect in relation to the period within which notices of the acquisition of a prescribed interest in a newspaper must be provided to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal pursuant to section 92fac of the Broadcasting Act. Paragraph 9 (f) of the Bill also introduces a new sub-section 27 (14) of the Ownership and Control Act to ensure that grandfathered protection is maintained where an `old system' commercial radio or television station licence, held under the previous Broadcasting and Television Act, 1942, is converted over to the current Broadcasting Act. The Ownership and Control Act has facilitated fundamental changes in the patterns of media ownership in Australia. These structural changes have complemented the Government's equalisation policy of providing competitive commercial television services within larger and more viable regional markets. The `fine tuning' amendments in this Bill are designed to ensure that the technical operation of the Ownership and Control Act is more certain and equitable for those persons who held legitimate interests before the new media ownership legislation came into effect. Financial Impact There are not expected to be any additional costs to the Commonwealth in the administration of the provisions in this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Referral to Joint Committee Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That the Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill 1987 be referred to the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Debate resumed from 26 October, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.08) —The Senate has before it the following package of legislation: the Sea Installations Bill 1987, the Sea Installations Levy Bill 1987 and the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987. The Opposition will support this legislation. In recent years there has been an increased interest in the establishment of sea installations, such as floating hotels, along the Australian coastline. Those which may be established within the three-mile territorial sea of Australia are subject to appropriate State and Federal laws. However, those which may be established beyond the three-mile limit, but still within the outer limits of the continental shelf or the Australian fishing zone, would not currently be subject to State or Federal laws, in particular those relating to customs, excise, migration, quarantine, safety, health and pollution control. I note in passing that platforms used for petroleum exploration and certain other mineral exploration and exploitation activities are not affected by this legislation as they are already covered by the provisions of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. It is proposed that this legislation come into effect on 15 October. It will initially apply only to the proposed floating hotel to be constructed in the lagoon of the John Brewer Reef some 72 kilometres off Townsville. This hotel, which will cost in excess of $30m, will be a seven-storey, 200-bed hotel and is being constructed by Reef Link Pty Ltd. However, one can expect that there will be further similar developments; indeed, I am aware that there are proposals for the establishment of a similar hotel development on the Fitzroy Reef. I turn to the provisions in summary of the three Bills. Firstly, the Sea Installations Bill 1987 imposes requirements on proposed developers to obtain permits from the Minister. These may be given subject to terms, conditions and safeguards resulting from appropriate environmental impact considerations and from other matters, such as the necessity to ensure that insurance arrangements are properly in place. Secondly, the Bill makes relevant State laws applicable to the installations. It treats the State laws with exceptions which can be made by legislation, in effect, as if they were laws of the Commonwealth applied per medium of this piece of Commonwealth legislation. Thirdly, the Bill applies a series of relevant Commonwealth laws where no general body of civil or criminal law otherwise exists in relation to the installation concerned. There is a schedule to the legislation which lists some 33 Commonwealth Acts which will now have application. They include a whole range of navigation Acts, air accident Acts, civil aviation Acts, crimes Acts, environment and extradition Acts, taxation Acts, health Acts, postal services Acts, racial and sex discrimination Acts, various telecommunications Acts and the like. Fourthly, the legislation allows the States to be recompensed for their administrative costs where their authorities act to enforce or give specific application to this legislation. Finally, commercial fishing and pearling vessels, navigational and meteorological aids, commercial cargo carriers, wharves and jetties, historic shipwrecks, resource industry fixed structures and mobile units, defence structures, submarine cables and other prescribed structures are specifically exempted from the provisions of the legislation. The Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill separately imposes the relevant provisions of the Customs Act 1901, the Excise Act 1901, the Quarantine Act 1908 and the Migration Act 1958 to sea installations. The Sea Installations Levy Bill imposes a levy on installations expressed as either a percentage of the market value of the installation or the gross revenue derived from the installation, whichever is the higher. It sets this levy at a maximum of 20 per cent. The aim is to recoup revenue equal to that which would have been paid in State and local government taxes had they been applicable so that the sea installations do not operate at the expense of the mainland economy. The levy money will be used, by and large, to help offset the cost to the states for their administrative costs relating to this legislation and some classes of installations. For instance, scientific and research installations may be exempt from the levy by regulation. The history of this legislation is such that it was before the Parliament prior to the dissolution of the Parliament for the last election. The legislation was passed in the House of Representatives but had not been dealt with in the Senate. Since then it has been slightly amended-fine-tuned, I suppose would be a more appropriate way to put it-on two specific occasions. Firstly, prior to its reintroduction to the House of Representatives there were some changes made to the legislation. Secondly, amendments were introduced by the Government in the House of Representatives during the debate. I turn to those amendments. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills raised a number of matters about this legislation when it examined it some months ago. Arising from the comments of the Senate Committee the Government has looked at a number of these matters. It has picked up a number of the concerns which the Senate Committee raised. For instance, the decision to impose the 20 per cent maximum ceiling on the levy arises from the fact that the Committee was concerned about the otherwise open-ended nature of the proposed levy regime. That has been attended to. The Committee expressed concerns over inconsistencies in the power of entry of inspectors without warrants. Again, the legislation has picked that up. Interestingly, there are now some differences between the powers of inspectors as far as sea installations are concerned and the powers of inspectors in relation to fisheries legislation, in particular in relation to warrants under those pieces of legislation. At some stage it may be useful for the Government to look at the different regimes that operate as far as those pieces of legislation are concerned and take some steps to bring a greater degree of uniformity into those matters. It is also important to note that this legislation-that is to say, the October legislation, if I may described it in those terms-differs from the May legislation in that it extends its coverage to Antarctic waters and to the protection of those areas adjacent to the Heard and Macdonald islands which were previously not encompassed within the provisions of the original legislation. As I have said, the previous legislation excluded the external territories of Heard and Macdonald islands and the Australian Antarctic Territory. The difficulties that led to that initial exclusion having been overcome, and there having been Press reports that Barrier Reef Holdings was looking at establishing an off-shore installation off the coast of Antarctica, have led to this new regime being put in place. The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposal) Act of 1974 now applies, and a consequential amendment provides that the time limits within which the Minister must finalise an application are subject to, inter alia, whether or not an environmental impact statement is required. Norfolk Island is brought into the consultative regime, and I am glad to see that that has also been included in this revised piece of legislation. The legislation also provides for more exemptions from its operations than was originally proposed in the May package of Bills. The applications of the criminal law, the jurisdiction of the courts and the issuing of orders and injunctions are spelt out in greater detail and with more precision. In particular, it is made clear that, unless for exceptional reasons, entry to a sea installation must be made from a place within Australian territorial jurisdiction. As I have said, two amendments were introduced by the Government when the matter was before the House of Representatives. The first relates to the general operation of the exemption clauses provision of the legislation. Whereas in the past in order to get an exemption, if not specially provided for, an application had to be made, the legislation now provides that the Minister may, in advance of any application, grant a series of exemptions from the operations of the levy. This is particularly useful because it will allow the Minister the discretion to exempt scientific and research vessels and installations from the payment of the levy. I was very concerned initially that there was not an adequate mechanism for ensuring that research operations were not subject to an unnecessary levy. I believe that has now been attended to, and it also allows the Antarctic Treaty regime to operate without any interference when one considers that other nations may be involved in terms of what would otherwise be Austraian territorial waters because of the unique international co-operative regime that exists under the Antarctic Treaty. One curious amendment-the officers may be able to provide the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) with some explanation on this-concerns the newly introduced definition of the word `aircraft'. In the Sea Installations Bill it is proposed that an aircraft means `a machine or apparatus that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions from the air or from buoyancy'. That is somewhat different from the definition of the word `aircraft' which appears in the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986. There, `aircraft' is designed to include: (a) any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air; and (b) an object that was designed or adapted for use as an aircraft but is incapable of being so used because-(i) . . . parts have, been removed from it; or (ii) it is in a wrecked or damaged condition; I think I am correct in understanding that the word `aircraft' has been redefined in order to encompass adequately the airship, as the emergence in recent years of airships back into commercial operations of one sort or another in Australia is such that the term `aircraft', as otherwise understood in Commonwealth law, might not have covered adequately the operations of airships. As a result, if an airship is moored or anchored either on one of the reefs or within the area of sea over which this legislation extends control, or it is in some way associated with some other structure which is operating as a sea installation, the airship itself is also fully encompassed within the provisions of the legislation and, I presume, is therefore subject to the levy arrangements. I would be grateful if it could be confirmed that my understanding of the definition of the term `aircraft' is correct. I believe that one of the advantages which will derive from this legislation and which to the best of my knowledge has not been the subject of very much debate-in particular attention was not drawn to it by the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) in his second reading speech, but I am sure it is of particular concern to Senator Gareth Evans, who is the Minister at the table- Senator Gareth Evans —On the contrary. Senator PUPLICK —The advantage is that pirate broadcasting-- Senator Gareth Evans —Oh, I see. Senator PUPLICK —I knew that Senator Evans would be interested. Pirate broadcast- ing-- Senator Haines —In the piracy or the broadcasting? Senator PUPLICK —It is a question of which one he is practised at and which one he is interested in, I suppose. The legislation will operate in such a way that the problems which other countries have encountered with pirate broadcasting can be adequately controlled as far as Australia is concerned. I believe that there has been a gap in this area of the broadcasting regime in Australia. Undoubtedly, there was no positive intention to deal with this problem through the mechanism of the Sea Installations Bill. Nevertheless I believe that the Government has the power to deal adequately with any problems which might arise and we certainly have no objection to that being perhaps one of the unintended consequences of this piece of legislation. Having the operations of this legislation give effect, as it were, to State law per the medium of a piece of Commonwealth legislation is perhaps a slightly unusual way to proceed. The Opposition is not entirely happy with the way in which this operates but, in the absence of any other mechanism which we can see clearly available, we do not press any problem as far as that is concerned. But I would not like the long term development whereby any regime in which the use of Commonwealth legislation to extend the operation of State laws, without specifying precisely which State laws are to be applied, becomes a general rule of thumb. In this legislation, the 33-odd Commonwealth Acts which are to be given effect to are specified in the schedule. I think there needs to be some fairly precise control mechanism for the way in which State laws will be identified and then applied. One can see a whole series of problems arising from State laws which relate to things such as liquor licences, the regulation of gaming terms and conditions of employment, and workers compensation legislation, which will vary enormously from State to State and which indeed may be extremely controversial pieces of legislation in relation to particular causes or particular times. Again I would be grateful if the Minister, when responding to the debate, would draw our attention to the mechanisms which will be in force or in place for giving effect to State legislation and the proper notification to the Commonwealth Parliament of the legislation which it is proposed to give effect to, using what is in fact a piece of Commonwealth law. As I said, we have pleasure in supporting this legislation. It is part of the continuing problem which is faced with the development of new legal regimes, which goes back quite a considerable way to the attempt to negotiate a package of legislative arrangements which, around the 1970s, really started to be a major problem in terms of the territorial sea and Australian coastal waters. The old rules, which used to be applicable only within three-mile limits, suddenly became no longer relevant with the development of regimes about the law of the sea and, indeed, the development of a concept of responsibility and control over exclusive fishing zones extending up to 200 miles off the coast. Difficulties which arose in relation to precise definition of high water marks, low water marks, continental shelves and which government had jurisdiction, the various rulings of the High Court of Australia, the constitutional off-shore settlement, which Senator Durack, as the then Attorney-General, put into place-all of these continue from time to time to throw up particular problems which need to be addressed. This package of legislation addresses those problems as they relate to sea installations and, in particular, has been brought forward as a result of the development of one of those pieces of legislation, the one to which I have already referred, concerning the floating hotel adjacent to the city of Townsville. As I said, the Opposition has pleasure in supporting these three pieces of legislation and looks forward to an explanation from the Minister on the two particular matters which I have raised. We are happy to give the Bills speedy passage. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.28) —The Sea Installations Bill, the Sea Installations Levy Bill and the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill are important because they deal with a very important area of Australia. The reason for the introduction of the Sea Installations Bill at this time is to give some legislative framework for a new development which is occurring on the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is the longest and in fact one of the most interesting reefs around Australia. It extends from near the mouth of the Fly River in Papua New Guinea down the coast of Queensland to Lady Elliott Island, which is at a latitude of 24 degrees south. The total length of the reef is about 2,000 kilometres. I suppose to say the `barrier reef', as Matthew Flinders did, is a bit of a misnomer, because it is a collection of islands and reef flats which extend across that area. This has long been recognised as an important ecological area and an important tourist area. In 1976 the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was established. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was put together under Commonwealth legislation and it is responsible for making recommendations to the Minister on the care and development of the marine park. The Great Barrier Reef region covers 348,700 square kilometres-a massive area. In 1981 the whole region was inscribed on the World Heritage List-I will come back to this later-established under the Convention for the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage. This is the highest possible international conservation status. It is also an indication of the value of this area to the rest of the world. Not only is it an honour for Australia to have this award bestowed on the Great Barrier Reef, but also we have a responsibility as a country to defend this area from those who would despoil it. The entire reef region is also included on the Register of the National Estate under the Australian Heritage Commission Act. Part of the region was listed in 1980 and the remainder in 1982. The Convention obliges the Commonwealth Government to ensure that effective measures are taken for the conservation of sections of the World Heritage situated within its territory. The Federal Government has the ultimate responsibility for and control of the reef region, including the territorial seas, to the low water tide line on the islands. This is a very important point. What is happening to the Great Barrier Reef area? We all know that many of the islands have already been developed-in fact, overdeveloped-for tourism. Tourism is a two-edged sword. On the one hand it can create jobs and local revenue; but on the other hand it often tends, by its very nature, to destroy the very features that the tourists want to come to see. There is a rather frightening development in the Great Barrier Reef area in that, instead of concentrating on island areas, the developers are now looking off-shore in boats to see the reef. There have been some temporary facilities or bases for people to visit so that they could snorkel and have a look at the reef. But now the new developments-and the developments which prompted this legislation-are the emplacement of huge floating hotel structures; and I mean massive. Such developments are changing the nature of the whole management problem for the reef, because no one really knows what will happen if we moor a huge barge, hundreds of metres long and a hundred metres wide containing 100 or so rooms-which is essentially what it is- over a section of the reef. Certainly there will be some effect on it, but no one knows exactly what it will be. There are a number of proposals. The first has, I believe, been mentioned by Senator Puplick. It is also the reason for this Bill. I refer to the John Brewer Reef proposal. That proposed development is included in the provisions of the Sea Installations Bill. But there are others which are being mooted and which are not included under this Bill, and it is our concern that they are not given the protection of this Bill. There are two proposals in addition to the John Brewer Reef proposal. I quote from the public notices in the Courier-Mail of 27 April 1987. One notice refers to a proposal to conduct a program including a floating accommodation for 100 persons on Lady Musgrave Island lagoon, and states: The placing and operating of a floating accommodation complex within Lady Musgrave Island lagoon. Snorkelling, scuba diving, windsurfing, coral viewing, reef walking and bird watching within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Capricornia section, and the Capricorn-Bunker Marine Park. The zoning of the area is General Use ``B''. The proposed structure will accommodate 100 overnight guests and 100 day visitors. The dimensions of the proposed structure are approximately 46 metres by 12 metres. The structure will have three decks above water level and will be accompanied by a 20 metre by 8 metre pontoon to be used as a helipad recreation area. The proposed location is 300 metres east-south-east of Lady Musgrave Island. Another proposal is for a development in Fitzroy Reef lagoon. The notice in respect of that development states: The floating hotel will be on a base of 100 metres by 38 metres and will accommodate 360 guests. It will be accompanied by a 37 metre square pontoon containing an underwater restaurant and will provide a day-trip destination from other centres. Transport to the facility will be by two 220-passenger catamarans and one 4 passenger helicopter. That represents a massive use of the reef area and this, too, will not be within the purview of the Sea Installations Bill. We feel that these developments should be subject to the control of this legislation. We strongly believe that the concept of floating tourist hotels is dramatically inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the marine park and that a proliferation of such structures would be an irresponsible breach of Australia's responsibilities towards world heritage of the Great Barrier Reef region. It was initially argued by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority that floating hotels would take the pressure off Barrier Reef islands, many of which have suffered irreparable damage in the name of tourism. However, to date there is no evidence to suggest that this pressure on Barrier Reef islands has decreased. In fact, the apparent prospect of free real estate on the Great Barrier Reef has caused a rash of floating hotel proposals. This is an entirely inappropriate privatisation of the Great Barrier Reef because, after all, it belongs to all the people of the world. What right should a private individual have to take away a world treasure? At the very least very stringent baseline and monitoring studies should be required at the John Brewer Reef site. This will require several years. In addition, for health and safety reasons, the John Brewer Reef hotel should be required to endure successfully at least one major cyclone because of the obvious liability if a disaster occurred. In other words, when the John Brewer Reef hotel operation is in place we should wait and see what happens; we should see what are the ecological effects, what are the sociological effects and what it does to other tourist ventures in the area. It is really too soon to go ahead with any other developments when this one is so experimental. I understand that this development is fully constructed and is now waiting in Singapore. It is undergoing tests and will soon be brought to Australia. Not only the Australian Democrats have expressed concern over these activities. Peter Milton, a member of the Australian Labor Party in the other place, has also recognised these difficulties. On page 1343 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 22 October 1987, he said: In common with the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland and the Australian Conservation Foundation, I have strong concerns about the potential impact which floating hotels and other structures will have on the Great Barrier Reef. As I mentioned in my previous speech in this House, on 5 May, in relation to the present legislation, the prospect of freehold real estate on the Great Barrier Reef, and the consequent uncontrolled development of both private and tourist facilities, could present a great threat to the fragile environment of the reef. It is vital that stringent monitoring studies should be undertaken of the impact of the John Brewer Reef floating hotel tourist facilities on the Great Barrier Reef as a whole. Peter Milton has expressed these concerns and I only hope that the Government is listening to its own members. Peter Milton continued: Another proposal is also in the pipeline for the construction of a $20m floating hotel to be anchored in the Fitzroy Reef Lagoon off Gladstone. This proposal- as I mentioned in my presentation- includes a five-storey hotel accommodating 360 beds and includes an underwater restaurant and facilities for day trippers. It seems to me that it is absolutely vital that consideration of this proposal should be deferred until a satisfactory monitoring study of the John Brewer Reef floating hotel has been completed. So he, too, agrees with our stand that no further developments should be made until the John Brewer Reef situation has been evaluated. Peter Milton continued: Another problem is the fact that a third proposal for a floating hotel, accommodating 100 overnight guests and 100 day visitors, proposed for the Lady Musgrave Island Lagoon does not come under the provisions of the present Bill, because it is in waters under the control of the Queensland State Government. However, the proposal also comes under the provisions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and its accompanying regulations. The reef is also part of a World Heritage area, and therefore, Australia has a responsibility to the international community to ensure that the reef is protected from environmental damage, and that includes controls on tourist development. Once again, a member of the Labor Party in the lower House agrees with our stand and the conservation stand that we should tread very carefully on the Great Barrier Reef because it is indeed a fragile area. Peter Milton also brought up another interesting point. Because of his interest in the Antarctic, he pointed out, as did Senator Puplick, that this legislation has application in the Antarctic. Tourism in the Antarctic is, if anything, even more controversial than tourism on the Great Barrier Reef. The Antarctic in its own way is a fragile environment. There has been some talk recently of tourist developments, perhaps in conjunction with the Antarctic Division, with airstrips being put in at Davis, for instance, into which tourists could fly. I am unable to picture a floating hotel structure in the Antarctic. I think the problems inherent with ice and general life support systems there could make it quite difficult. I would hope that this will never come to pass but, if it does, that too should be treated with great caution. My own view of tourism in the Antarctic is that it should not be necessary. Often we are told that we must have some economic value in an area in order for it to be saved from other development; in other words, if we can develop a tourism industry in the Antarctic it may be possible to save it from mineral exploitation or oil drilling. I do not accept that argument at all. I feel that if an area has intrinsic value, as do the Antarctic and the Great Barrier Reef, it does not require a tourist development to justify it. Its own existence is justified by the mere fact that it exists. It has a right to exist and we do not have to figure out some economic justification for its existence. Therefore, I reject any moves to introduce tourism in the Antarctic merely to familiarise people with the Antarctic so that perhaps when they go home they will try to save it. I think the Antarctic deserves to be saved in its own right. We have received a number of inquiries about the Sea Installations Bill, and we were concerned that it might not include the right for the public to seek injunctions in relation to anything that happened in the area that was in contravention of the Bill. We find that the public does have that right and that it is assured. It is based on section 14 (1) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, and we are quite gratified to find that. We feel that preliminary environmental advice should be incorporated as part of the application for the Minister's information regarding initial permits and variation and renewal of permits, which are dealt with in part III, clauses 20 to 28. I understand that the Government may have some comment on that. We would like ministerial discretion to be widened to allow the Minister to vary the standard 60 day notice requirements in order to allow consultation with the public and interested parties. At all stages in the implementation of this legislation we would like to have full public participation, hearing procedures and routes available for the public to be involved. After all, as I have said before, this is a public resource. The final thing that we would like to see-and I foreshadow an amendment that I will move in the committee stage-is an extension of the coverage of the Sea Installations Bill to include all of the waters to the level of low tide. At the moment State waters are excluded. We feel that this is absolutely illogical because the World Heritage listing includes all waters to low tide, the National Estate listing includes all waters to low tide, and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority covers all waters to low tide. However, the Sea Installations Bill does not cover these waters, and that is why Lady Musgrave Island will not come under the control of the Sea Installations Bill. I think this is a grievous oversight on the part of the Government. I know that the Government often does not want to pick a fight with State governments, particularly those in the deep north and the deep south, but I think this is one area in which it must grasp the nettle. I do not think it would find all that much opposition to its including all of the waters of the Great Barrier Reef in the areas covered by the Sea Installations Bill. It is not as if there is massive public support for State control of these waters. The only people who would really be disadvantaged would be the white-shoe brigade. It is obvious that they are moving off-shore from their island bases. They will be moving into territorial waters if they find that the laws there are less strict, less environmentally sound, than those applying in Commonwealth waters. Because of this Bill there may be a move to emplace these structures not on the reef, where they can be controlled by this Bill, but in territorial waters. Therefore, we shall be moving in committee amendments to tidy up the boundaries and to make them into one logical whole which will match the boundaries of the other authorities I have mentioned. That concludes my remarks on the second reading. As I foreshadowed, we shall be introducing amendments. I have not yet had any indication from the Government, or for that matter from the Opposition, as to its thoughts on the amendments. I hope that it supports them because they are logical, necessary and would extend what I believe is a very good and timely piece of legislation to cover all waters of the Barrier Reef. This could only benefit the people of Australia and the world. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(10.46) —My contribution to this debate on the Sea Installations Bill 1987 and allied Bills will be brief, but I wanted to participate in order to point out that the introduction of this legislation is timely. I am aware of the growing interest in this type of tourist venture in the Northern Territory as well as in the places which have been mentioned in this debate and also in the second reading speech of the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate). I approached my participation in this debate with some degree of trepidation, because I felt, after the last 24 hours of debate on the proposed transport system at Ayers Rock, that if I dared to mention a floating hotel in any context at all, it would probably be blown out of the water. It is a fact that proposals such as this have been made in respect of, for example, Cobourg Peninsula National Park in the Northern Territory, as well as particular areas of Queensland. I concur with the contribution made this morning by Senator Sanders in two respects. The first is that in the implementation of this legislation a great deal has been left, as necessarily it must be left, to ministerial discretion in the environmental impact of such proposals. The Minister obviously felt the same degree of sensitivity towards this necessary area as he concentrated to some considerable degree on explaining the purpose of the legislation in his second reading speech. He pointed out that not only are permits required to get the proposals off the ground and into the water in the first place, but also that revocation and review provisions exist in the Bill in case problems arise a little further down the track. I would make the obvious comment that it is far more practical to prevent a proposed venture from going ahead than it is to revoke its permit or close it down after considerable sums have been invested and it is operating. The most careful scrutiny will have to be given to all aspects of these installations, particularly where they impinge on protected national park areas. Senator Sanders also raised the important perennial question of preservation for its own sake. It is in this regard that Senator Sanders made the second statement with which I concur completely. There is a view in many sections of the community, particularly where I come from, that of necessity national parks and preservation mean tourism and visitation. I go along with Senator Sanders in saying that there are many areas of the world where endangered species of flora, fauna and entire ecosystems must be properly preserved as they have a right to exist, as he said, in their own right without necessarily being subjected to tourist pressure. That gets me on to a very important area on which I am sure Senator Sanders would agree with me, and that is that without question one of the major management problems around the world of any national park is visitor pressure. It was in that context that the question of the transport system-I find it difficult to get my tongue around the word `monorail' at the moment-at Ayers Rock, the people mover, whatever one wants to call it, was raised. It was raised only in the context of the key question of what provides the lesser damage to an environment. My first reaction was to recoil in horror when it was initially suggested. It intrigued me last night to hear a statement on the national news by a representative of the Wilderness Society who said that he found the proposal bruited in respect of Ayers Rock to be an obscenity. He asked how one could possibly consider introducing that kind of modern technology into a primitive landscape. I agree with those sentiments but I am somewhat bemused that people can look at a proposal for a very safe, quiet transport system with horror and at the same time not consider that there is the slightest problem with 20 miles of brand new, sealed bitumen road with 50 or 60 tourist buses charging up and down it at 100 kilometres an hour. That is not exactly what I would call Stone Age technology. It is important to raise these issues in this debate, because with this legislation we are entering into the recognition of a brand new form of human intrusion into the ecosystem. I refer to off-shore tourist installations which, because of problems of waste disposal and so on, bring into effect a whole new ball game. Senator Sanders commented on areas such as the Antarctic, and once again I concur with his statements. The Antarctic is in the fortunate position-and few places in the world are in such a fortunate position-of being a fairly pristine area in respect of tourist traffic. Indeed, considering the potential for damage that would exist from tourist intrusion on a wide scale-and I have no hesitation in supporting Senator Sanders on this-it is very desirable indeed to prevent such intrusion where it currently does not exist. The major problem in the management of national parks in Australia these days is in trying to repair damage and exercise damage control. A classic example is the spectacular rock art that exists in Kakadu National Park. There are 5,000 known rock art galleries; it is the largest repository of indigenous Aboriginal rock art in the world. Spectacular galleries such as Obiri and Nourlangie face obvious tourist pressure. In the past that has been catastrophic, and it is with extraordinary dismay that we view the great need for legislation such as this in the face of actions by some members of the public. One can only stand back in total dismay and disbelief at the damage caused by someone who would go to a rock art site, as someone did at Nourlangie many years ago, cover the entire rock surface where the paintings existed with a combination of what was obviously petroleum and diesel fuel, set fire to it and burn the paintings off the rock surface. It is a constant source of concern, as it will be when these off-shore installations get going, to management staff. They have to tread the daily tightrope-and often a political tightrope, because it often gets into the public arena-between preserving the resource, not just for tourism but for its own sake, while at the same time trying to accommodate the natural pressure for people to go in and view what is there. That causes resentment and there is no question that it will occur with the off-shore installations which are now being discussed in the Northern Territory, because there are people in the community who demand the right, as they see it, to travel at will across the great wilderness, the frontier of Australia, without any restrictions being placed upon them at all. I remember an incident which occurred many years ago and which stands out in my mind. When I was working in Kakadu National Park for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), we were constructing the first fence-15 kilometres of it-to preserve from intrusion an area which was to be the subject of ecological studies. One day I was working on this fence, putting the line up with a couple of other workers from CSIRO, when, out of the scrub and knocking trees down in its path, came a classic sight in the Northern Territory- a huge four-wheel drive with an enormous bull-bar on the front. The vehicle was bashing trees left, right and centre and it contained half a dozen blokes, armed to the teeth with shotguns and high-powered firearms. We were subjected to 10 minutes of fairly vitriolic and colourful verbal abuse, such as `What are you so-and-sos up to?', `It wont be long before a man cannot drive across this country' and `We should knock the bloody, so-and-so fence line down'. In view of the 12-gauge shotguns and .243 magnums that were bristling out of the vehicle, we politely stood back from the fence line and said, `Please be our guests; go ahead, remove it'. They proceeded to do that. It took a couple of hundred yards of fence line to get the dirty water off their chests-there were a few people doing that in the House of Representatives yesterday, I noticed-and we then proceeded to spend a couple of hours putting the fence back after the men had gone. The point I am making is that I am familiar on a day to day basis with the constant tightrope that has to be walked in the management of our national parks, balancing the question of preservation for its own sake, which is an essential role for national parks to play, and the very obvious pressure exerted by people who want to see the resource that is available. I suspect, as Senator Sanders obviously suspects, that in this area of sea installations in tourist areas balancing act will provide the Minister responsible for the environment-whoever he may be-with some real headaches in future years. There is no doubt that this will be a highly desirable market to get into. There is a certain attraction and novelty in being in an off-shore hotel or, indeed, an off-shore casino-and I dare say that we will see some of those around the place before too long. I believe that we cannot get away completely from the fact that much of this will have to be left to ministerial discretion. There are many arguments about the extent to which ministerial discretion should extend, but in my view-and I held this view very firmly when I was in opposition and expressed it many times-I do not think that one can argue too hard about that because, by and large, the system of government under which we operate is that governments stand or fall on the decisions of their Ministers. That is not an unreasonable way to run the country. I do not have any particular objections to the discretion provided in this legislation for the Minister to determine whether an environmental impact study has to be carried out. Indeed, that has been invoked, in the case of the installations that are currently proceeding, in the powers that the Minister has for cracking down on any abuses of the development once it has actually gone ahead. Along with Senator Sanders, I share a feeling of some trepidation about the likely blossoming of these proposals. As I said, I believe the legislation is absolutely essential. I hope that it gets a speedy passage through the Senate and comes into law without too much undue delay, because there is no question but that there will be many such applications on the Minister's desk before too long. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.00) —This morning the Senate is debating the Sea Installations Bill 1987, the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 and the Sea Installations Levy Bill 1987. As Senator Puplick said in leading this debate, the Opposition supports this legislation. The legislation has come back to the Senate because of the premature election and there have been some minor changes to it in respect of such matters as the levy. I think Senator Collins made a very valid point when he said that it was timely. There is a need for legislation in this direction because, not only in the Barrier Reef area of Queensland but also in several other parts of Australia, there are movements towards building tourist facilities off the coast. The Sea Installations Bill sets out to regulate the operation of certain off-shore sea installations fixed or moored to the sea-bed of the Australian continental shelf or adjacent to Australian territories. It is facilitating the development of technically sound, environmentally acceptable and economically viable installations of this nature. It effectively makes those installations subject to the same legal requirements as those that apply to land-based facilities. It provides for the application to be made, for a fee, prior to the issue of a permit and for the issuing of permits under which the installations operate. This permit can be issued for up to 15 years and may be reviewed and varied as circumstances change. It excludes items such as defence structures, cargo ships, dumping vessels, shipwrecks, pearling vessels, navigational aids and cables. The Bill defines the areas involved and adjacent areas and provides substantial penalties for any contravention of the legislation. It provides safety zones around installations and defines the rights that inspectors have in seeing that the Act is complied with. The second Bill we are discussing-the Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill-provides relevant amendments to the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Migration Act and the Quarantine Act as a consequence of the main Bill. It also repeals certain parts of the Customs Tariff Act and the Excise Tariff Act. Finally, the Sea Installations Levy Bill provides for a levy to be paid to the Commonwealth by a permit holder. The levy is either a percentage of the market value of the installation or a percentage of the gross revenue derived from that installation. The first real application of these Bills will be to the Reef Link Pty Ltd construction at John Brewer Reef, which has been referred to earlier in the debate. This will be sited on the John Brewer Reef, 72 kilometres north-east of Townsville. This Reef Link hotel will be managed by Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, but it has its origins in Mr Doug Tarca, the tourist operator in Townsville, who is the principal of Reef Link. Mr Tarca is a very experienced diver who has spent a lifetime on the reef. One must give him full credit and express admiration for the imagination he put into this development. There are not too many people who would have thought of building what will be a seven-storey hotel, weighing about 11,000 tonnes and mooring it out on a very attractive part of a lagoon on the reef and coping with the myriad technical and financial problems that come from an installation of this size. It is really a very creative and innovative approach that Mr Tarca has set in train. Having had some knowledge of the operation in its planning stage, I think it has been very carefully and sensitively handled. I can find no fault with it at present. It will provide a platform on a very beautiful part of the Barrier Reef. The hotel has been sited, not to help Townsville per se, but because in Mr Tarca's judgment John Brewer Reef provides the best facilities for a tourist hotel with a view to seeing the Barrier Reef features at close hand. It is an investment of about $40m. It will provide 200 rooms and will have its own tennis court, swimming pool and desalination system, together with a system of floating rafts around it. The whole structure has been built in Singapore. My understanding is that it is already in transit. It is coming out on one of the oil rig supply ships. The structure is made of concrete and steel and weighs 11,000 tonnes. Parts of the hull of the oil rig supply ship are submerged underneath the hotel. It should be installed next month. Senator Sanders said that the structure was hundreds of metres long. It is not. My information is that it is 90 metres long by 27 metres wide. It is a very exciting and imaginative project. It has been vetted very carefully with respect to its possible environmental impact on the reef. It has the full support of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Senator Collins was talking about conservation for its own sake. I take the view that conservation is more profound than that. There is no such thing as a static environment. There is no such thing as a static ecosystem. It is a dynamic and evolving environment. The belief inherent in some conservation thinking, that if one puts a fence around an area or a system or if one does not intrude on it, it will somehow be preserved in perpetuity, is not scientifically correct at all. Things are subject to natural growth and development. Having said that, I am not arguing for destruction because they are going to change in any case. That is not the point at all. Conservation is a matter of good housekeeping and common sense. I often feel that the environmental argument has moved far beyond the greenies and many members of the Labor Party. The community now recognises the benefit of preserving the distinctive features of our physical environment for as far as can be seen into the future. But at the same time it wants an intelligent use of those features, provided they are not going to be destroyed. The community recognises now that we have environmental management plans that enable us to use very beautiful and rare resources and not destroy them. It is a matter of management, not of isolation. Senator Sanders was very much putting the old isolationist argument. I compliment the Government on having had the courage to go ahead with this legislation. It incorporates the principles I was talking about. It incorporates the preservation of the environment but it also allows for its use. As a Queenslander, I am bemused as to why we have a double standard. Why can we go ahead and, in a responsible way, develop the Barrier Reef for tourist facilities, yet we have all this nonsense about rainforests? Apparently, under the Richardson scheme, we cannot have any intelligent maintenance of rainforests in the form of controlled logging, a system which it has been demonstrated over 60 years does not do any harm. It applies to only a very small part of the rainforests, less than 18 per cent, leaving over two million acres in its virginal state. I contrast that with the approach to the reef, which is both intelligent and responsible. The Reef Link program for the John Brewer Reef will be of great benefit to Australia and, in particular, to north Queensland and Townsville. Townsville has come a long way since I had my first job there at the Townsville General Hospital in the latter part of the 1950s. Its population has grown three or four times. It is developing as a tourist centre, both for Australians and for people from overseas. This year will see the completion of the domestic airport terminal. The international terminal has already been finished. Tourist traffic in Townsville has shown remarkable growth in recent times. The accommodation takings in the September quarter last year were $4.8m. That is an indication of the number of national and international travellers who have visited the area. Townsville has also taken a great step forward with the building of the Great Barrier Reef Wonderland facility, which had its origins with Mr Graeme Kelleher, the Chairman of the Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The proposal was to build, on land, a simulated reef environment with fish, reef structures and corals. It is a world first. It is a very imaginative development. It involved the Commonwealth Government in providing funding through the bicentenary program. The Queensland Government was also involved. Private enterprise built it and contributed to its financial base, principally through Avago Holdings Pty Ltd in Townsville, a well-managed private enterprise group in the region. I watched Reef Wonderland being built. I have been through it since it was completed. I commend it to anyone who visits Townsville. As I said, it is a world first. It is the first time a large reef structure has been built on land. A lot of scientific advice came from the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. It is a very rewarding and interesting experience to visit Reef Wonderland in Townsville. As more money becomes available and as a result of the experience of creating a world first, a reef environment, the facility will be one of the great scientific and tourist attractions of the world. Let me list the essential points of this legislation. Firstly, there has to be concern for the preservation of the environment. The legislation ensures that. Secondly, the legal aspects of the operations of a hotel or facility have to be adequately covered by legislation the same as that applying to the rest of Australia with respect to customs, excise, general law and order, and migration. Thirdly, there have to be safety provisions for the lives involved. Insofar as it is possible to foresee what might happen, the legislation covers all eventualities. I do not share the concern of Senator Sanders about environmental risks from the John Brewer Reef program. As I understand it, it provides for the total retention of all liquid and solid wastes from the hotel that will be moored on the reef. About the only scientific argument one could advance is that the shadow of the moored structure might have some effect on the life of some of the living organisms on the reef. I do not know whether that is a serious consideration. It has not been put to me as a serious consideration. Insofar as it is a fixed structure, it will require heavy moorings to base it on the reef. Whatever is anchored in the lagoon will not move around. It will be in a static spot. So any rubbish that is thrown over the side will be seen in the clear waters by the tourists. Over and above everything else, the people who have invested $40m in this venture are not going to live in their own garbage heap. They are going to be meticulous in the maintenance of the environment about them. Their investment is worthless unless the environment around it is preserved. So I do not have any real reservations about the environment. Without creating a monopoly for the people who have made this initial move, I think it is prudent to let five or 10 years run before we go on to other developments. I do not share the view that we cannot use national parks. I think they are for the benefit of the human race. The argument that has been put forward that somehow or other we are privatising a resource that is owned by Australians and by the rest of the world leaves me quite cold. That is an argument that cannot be sustained. But, at the same time, we certainly do not want anything like the beach line at the Gold Coast in Queensland, where one garish hotel competes with its neighbour. We do not want that all the way down the 2,000 kilometres of the reef. There is a good argument to proceed slowly on this and to evaluate future developments in the light of the experience that we have gained. My concern about the legislation relates to the levy. It is not defined, except in the most general terms, what the levy will be for the Commonwealth. I am concerned that the levy could be so high as to provide a commercial disincentive for this venture or for future ones. The other point of concern to me is the one about Antarctic development. Not only the Parliament but all people in Australia are getting inured now to very irrational statements from the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr Brown, when he is in the country. Some of his comments about Antarctica and possible developments there were, to say the least, intemperate. They do not deserve the consideration of the Senate at this time. We support this legislation and we wish it a speedy passage through the Senate. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(11.16) —I thank Senator MacGibbon for his supportive speech. I will not take the opportunity to debate the rainforest question with him now, but I will be delighted to accept an invitation, if it is offered, to debate it in a matter of public importance or at any other time he cares to raise it. I will do that with pleasure. I hope he does not intend to base his future comments on the claim that logging exists in only 18 per cent of the rainforests. If he does, he will come to grief rather quickly. By the way, I would also welcome a matter of public importance debate from Senator Puplick on this issue. That would be even better, particularly in view of his recent visit to north Queensland. We have all waited breathlessly for something to result from it. I hope that we will see the result very soon, not in August next year as some have told me. Senator Puplick made a positive and supportive speech on this legislation and I thank him for that. He made a point about the review of inspection arrangements. He pointed out that the provisions in the sea installations legislation are different from those in fisheries legislation. The point is well made. I will refer it to my ministerial colleague and we may have some further discussions on that. He asked why the definition of `aircraft' is different from that relating to the Federal Airports Corporation. We just did not consider that this wide definition was needed in the case of the airports. Of course, it is not our intention that airships could be used to evade regulations. I have to concede that the point about the adoption of State laws is an interesting one. I think Senator Puplick suggested that the provision is not entirely satisfactory. I have to say that it follows the precedent of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and the precedent of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act when Northern Territory laws were adopted in both cases. Where there is a need to modify State laws, the power is there. They can be amended by regulation. As far as notifying Parliament of the effects of the adoption of State laws and which laws are covered-- Senator Puplick —What can be amended by regulation? Not the existing State laws? Senator RICHARDSON —No, not existing State laws; we would be in the High Court of Australia rather quickly if we attempted to do that-and just for once we might lose. I think notification of those laws to Parliament was the next point. We will have to look at how we notify Parliament on that question. Again, it is a point well made. At the moment it is pretty easy. We have adopted all State laws so it is not hard to notify Parliament of that. If we are to make any changes to that, Parliament will certainly be kept informed and I will notify Parliament in due course of how that may be done. Senator Sanders was the victim of some vicious attacks yesterday. I felt for him. In the face of adversity, we maintain solidarity. Senator Sanders implied that the Sea Installations Bill was designed to apply environmental protection-- Senator MacGibbon —He is one of your Party? Senator RICHARDSON —He is certainly not a member of my Party. At times he has sounded like a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, but not a member of mine. Senator Sanders —No, I am a radical. Senator RICHARDSON —I am glad that Senator Sanders has mentioned that. The only time I have been referred to as a radical, or indeed a communist, has been on my visits to Senator MacGibbon's home State. Compared with Senator MacGibbon, all of us are radicals and communists. I will return to my point, Mr Acting Deputy President, having been diverted, with your indulgence, for a couple of moments. I think Senator Sanders was implying that the Sea Installations Bill was designed to apply environmental protection to the floating hotel on the Great Barrier Reef. That is wrong. The whole of the Great Barrier Reef is adequately protected environmentally by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. It is acknowledged that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority thereby set up has done a magnificent job in protecting the environment. The original aim of the Sea Installations Bill was to apply other Commonwealth laws to the Great Barrier Reef outside the territorial sea in terms of taxation, Customs or immigration. In preparation it was decided to extend it to cover all areas around Australia outside the Great Barrier Reef in relation to environmental protection and other matters. As far as the Government is concerned, the Great Barrier Reef is fully protected under the Act that I have just mentioned and the full procedures under both of the Acts have been followed in relation to the proposal for a floating hotel on John Brewer Reef, including an environmental impact statement (EIS). A monitoring program has been established for that floating hotel. I think Senator Sanders also questioned ministerial power in varying the 60-day notice requirements in order to allow consultation with the public and interested parties. The 60-day notice requirement applies in relation to applications for which additional information is not required and where an EIS is not required. In those circumstances 60 days is considered a sufficient time frame for the Minister to consider an application. Where an EIS or some additional information is required, the 60-day limit does not apply. So I do not think any real problem remains. Of course, applications must be gazetted so that the public will know. They will not be well kept secrets or even badly kept secrets. An environmental assessment which involves the public will occur except in obviously clear-cut cases. Senator Sanders also suggested that preliminary environmental advice should be incorporated, for the Minister's information, as part of the application for initial permits or the variation or renewal of permits. Preliminary environmental advice will be required for applications for initial permits and variations or renewals of permits to allow for assessment of the need for an environmental impact statement or a public environmental report. I do not propose to say any more at this stage but I thank the Opposition for its support, and hope that I will be in a position to make that statement many more times in the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. SEA INSTALLATIONS BILL 1987 The Bill. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.25) —I move: Page 8, after subclause 5 (4), insert the following new subclauses: ``(4A) Where: (a) the Commonwealth has, under Article 11 of the Convention, submitted property to the World Heritage Committee, whether before, on or after the commencing day, as suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List provided for in paragraph 2 of that Article; or (b) property has, whether before, on or after the commencing day, been declared by regulation under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 to form part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage: subsection 4 (B) applies to that property. ``(4B) Where property to which this subsection applies comprises or includes waters of the sea: (a) that are included in an area described in Schedule 2 to the Petroleum Act in respect of a State but are outside the area of the sea that would, but for this subsection, be the adjacent area in respect of that State for the purposes of this Act; or (b) that are adjacent to, and beyond the outer limits of the area of the sea that would, but for this subsection, be the adjacent area in respect of a State for the purposes of this Act; those waters of the sea shall be deemed to be included in the adjacent area in respect of that State for the purposes of this Act. ``(4c) In subsections (4a) and (4b): `commencing day' means the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent; `Convention', `cultural heritage' and `natural heritage' have the same respective meanings as they have in the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983; `State' includes the Northern Territory.''. This amendment would have the effect of bringing into alignment all the boundaries involved in the Great Barrier Reef area. At the moment, the Sea Installations Bill covers territorial waters different from those in the world heritage and National Estate listings. In this case, the territorial waters of Queensland are excluded. We in the environmental movement are quite worried that Queensland will not have the same level of concern for the environment or any other such matters that the Federal Government will have in these areas. We feel that the Great Barrier Reef is a very sensitive area which requires the fullest protection that can be given. Not to allow the Sea Installations Bill to cover this area would be to allow the developers off the Queensland coast a greater capability to operate in an environmentally unsound way than they would otherwise have. It is for this reason that I have moved the amendment. I have had no indication in any of the speeches made in this place of the attitude of either the Government or the Opposition, so I will reserve any further remarks until I get a position from them. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(11.27) —While it may have been possible to maintain solidarity with Senator Sanders yesterday, it is more difficult today. Senator Haines —To achieve solidarity with him or with David MacGibbon? Senator RICHARDSON —The devil or the deep blue sea. Senator Haines —I prefer the deep blue sea every time. Senator RICHARDSON —But I do not know which one is the devil and which one is the deep blue sea. Senator Sanders began his contribution by saying, `We in the environment movement'. I might say that we in the environment movement have a different view from that of his `we' on this occasion. Senator Sanders —Is yours the regal `we'? Senator RICHARDSON —My `we' has always been the real `we'. Senator Sanders —No, the royal `we'. Senator RICHARDSON —Oh no, it is definitely not royal. However, I think our aims are the same. It is simply a matter of determining whether the position is already adequately covered. The Government finds it unnecessary to accept the amendment. I think the Commonwealth Government has demonstrated often enough that it well and truly accepts its world heritage obligations and is prepared to go to great lengths to see them through. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act already provides a vehicle for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. History over the last year or two shows that there appear to have been very few problems with it, and one wonders why we would need to do anything else. That Act enables full environmental impact statement processes and action comparable with that required under the new legislation. I do not see that the amendment of the Australian Democrats adds anything. Proposals so far have been dealt with satisfactorily. There have been no arguments, not even between the Commonwealth and Queensland. That is something that we cannot state often, but we can state it now. The attitude of the Queensland Government to the Great Barrier Reef in the last couple of years has been-I hesitate to use the word `exemplary'-very good, and there has not been conflict with the Commonwealth over it. But, taking either route, State government action is involved. The new legislation is based on direct State involvement to recognise State expertise and to avoid unnecessary duplication by the Commonwealth. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority arrangements rely on very successful Commonwealth-State consultation and the day to day management of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. I only wish that the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service had more to do with the running of forests in north Queensland, as we would all be better off. The new legislation is based, if you like, on a continuing recognition of State control of territorial seas following the off-shore constitutional settlement, and the Commonwealth would see no reason to upset that arrangement. If there were an abundance of examples of problems in this area the Government might take a different view but, in the absence of those examples, I can see no reason to accept the amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Sanders's) be agreed to The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K. (Teller)Jenkins, J. A. Wood, W. R.McLean, P. A. Alston, R. K. R. Hill, R.Archer, B. R. Jones, G. N.Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C.Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter McGauran, J. J.Beahan, M. E. MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R.Bolkus, N. Morris, J. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M.Burns, B. R. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G.Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reid, M. E.Collins, R. L. Reynolds, M. E.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M.Cooney, B. Sheil, G.Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R.Devereux, J. R. Stone, J. O.Devlin, R. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. E.Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.40) —I have just one question of the Minister for the Environment and the Arts which seeks clarification of the application of State laws. Apart from the exclusions which deal with the Crimes at Sea Act and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, is there any power in the Bill which would allow the Commonwealth to exclude from operation, over the relevant sea installation adjacent to the area of a State, any parts of State laws such as those which relate to liquor, to gaming or to industrial relations matters? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(11.41) —The short answer is yes. Sub-clause 46 (7) states: The regulations may provide that such of the provisions of a law or instrument referred to in subsection (1) as are specified in the regulations do not apply by reason of this section or so apply subject to such modifications as are specified in the regulations. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.42) —Does that not simply relate to laws which are adjacent to Territories, as distinct from areas which are adjacent to States? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(11.42) —I apologise to Senator Puplick; I should have read out sub-clause 46 (7). Instead I read out the sub-section concerning Territories. Sub-section 46 (7), which has exactly the same wording, covers the States. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.43) —I just want to be clear that when the Commonwealth Minister determines a view on, say, the operation of a casino licence, or trading hours in relation to a liquor licence, or the provisions of a piece of legislation which might relate to terms and conditions of employment, or industrial relations and strike provisions and all the rest, the Minister is in fact in a position to give effect to his own view rather than to the view which prevails in State legislation, and that the only way in which he can do that is by making a regulation to that effect, such regulation being subject to disallowance in the normal fashion. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Environment and the Arts)(11.44) —That is an accurate summary of the position. Bill agreed to. SEA INSTALLATIONS LEVY BILL 1987 SEA INSTALLATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1987 Bills-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Sea Installations Bill 1987 and Sea Installations (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1987 reported without amendment or requests and Sea Installations Levy Bill 1987 reported without requests; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Richardson) read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 October, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.45) —The Opposition will be proposing amendments to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3), the Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill, which are being debated together now. Two of these amendments deal with the Government's attempts to alter the existing procedures whereby the current income tax scales are presented to the Parliament on an annual basis, can in fact be debated annually and are subject to scrutiny by the Parliament annually. The Government seeks instead to institute those income tax rates, including the Medicare levy, as a standing order. In other words, they will be re-introduced into Parliament only when those rate scales change. The Opposition just disagrees totally with that principle and will be endeavouring, we hope with the support of the Australian Democrats, to bring both the Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill back to the traditional basis of annual imposition Bills, so that they will be subject, of course, to the same scrutiny as any measure which raises large amounts of revenue should have. We believe this principle is of major significance. In addition to moving amendments to bring that into effect-that is, amendments to clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 2) and clause 11 of the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill-we also wish to move an amendment to clause 8 of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3). That is the clause which proposes the insertion of a new section, section 46e, into the Income Tax Assessment Act to counter certain schemes involving the payment of dividends out of profits arising from the revaluation of assets. We also are concerned about another element relating to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) which I understand is presently under consideration in the office of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Depending on the outcome of those discussions we will determine what course of action we should adopt in relation to section 207. On the question of clause 8, to which I have just referred, originally the Government made an attempt to deal with this matter in June of this year. But that Bill was not continued with because of the election. The current Bill proposes that the date that was stated in that original legislation-that is, 4 June-be the date from which the new proposed section 46e of the present legislation operates. It appears to us that the proposals put forward in the legislation before us are not the same as those detailed in the earlier Bill, and we will be seeking to avoid what is clearly the retrospective nature of these changes by moving forward the effectiveness of this part of the legislation to 23 September 1987-the date on which this legislation was introduced into the Parliament. Obviously we will be taking that matter up at the committee stage of the Bill. It is the broader aspects of these Bills which are of major concern to the Opposition. I refer, of course, to the attempt by the Government in these Bills to deny the annual review of tax scales by the Parliament. The Government is apparently suggesting that it is simply proposing to put the legislation for income tax on the same basis as most other tax law; that is, subject to standing legislation which does not come up for annual review. But the Opposition is strongly of the view that, because income tax represents well over 60 per cent of the total receipts of the Commonwealth Government and because a large proportion of those receipts are embodied in the legislation before us, there is a very strong case for treating this legislation on a different basis. As Mr Peacock, the shadow Treasurer, said in the House of Representatives when debating this matter: The life blood of government is, after all, supplied through these sorts of Bills. The Opposition would be failing in its duty to uphold the supremacy of Parliament to allow such an enormously important means of debating government policy just to disappear. I must say that I totally agree with the point of view Mr Peacock has expressed. It is the duty and responsibility of the Parliament to conduct a thorough debate to make all Australians totally aware of the impact of the Government's taxation policies, and this should be capable of being done on an annual basis. It seems quite ridiculous that the Government should seek to ride roughshod over the Parliament in this way, particularly in a situation where it is pretending to the people of Australia that there are significant taxation cuts and that its policy is aimed at reducing tax revenues, when we know that the facts are to the contrary. We know, for example, from this Budget that this Government is planning to increase total income tax by 9.2 per cent this year. The consumer price index is forecast by this Government to be 6 1/2 per cent, although heaven knows what would happen to that forecast if the current problems with the stock markets around the world lead to any kind of reduction in the value of the Australian dollar; who knows what would happen to the level of inflation if the Australian dollar did fall! But on current expectations the Government is looking to a substantial real increase, after accounting for inflation, in the level of tax paid by Australians. For the Government to seek to diminish the Parliament's capacity to deal with the rates of tax by removing this opportunity which in the past has been with us on an annual basis is, I believe, another attempt by the Government to hide the realities and to give it a greater opportunity to use its now well established system of government by Press release to convey a totally false impression to the people of Australia in the area of income tax. I might say that this Government has become expert at misleading Australians about the level of income tax. As I said, the latest Budget figures show a 9.2 per cent increase this year in the level of income tax to be paid by Australians. That is an increase of $4.2 billion from a government which is going around the place claiming that it is reducing the tax burden. The total increase in all taxation revenue this year, by the way-and I spoke only of income tax when I talked about $4.2 billion-is budgeted to be $5.6 billion. If every time we have a tax `cut' we end up with a tax increase of $5.6 billion, heaven protect us from further tax cuts by this Government. I believe it is a matter of major concern that this kind of legislation aims at removing the prime opportunity of the Parliament to examine the rates of taxation in this country and to debate them, as it should do. That is the purpose of the Parliament; it is the reason that people have chosen representatives to debate this area, which is surely the very essential central element of the whole process of government. The Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 2) formally seeks to impose the tax payable on the basis of the new tax rate scales announced in the September 1985 tax reform package. I should interpose that to call that package a reform package is a total corruption of the word `reform'. What the Government means is `change' and it has achieved the apex of hypocrisy by corrupting the word `reform' by applying it to every change, whether it be for the better or the worse, in order to try to create a false impression that the changes it makes are reforms, are for the better. The great reform Acts of the nineteenth century improved the capacity of people to be adequately represented in the Parliament. If one is taking the word `reform' seriously, one certainly cannot regard with anything other than distaste the downgrading of the word `reform' by this Government. So often the word `reform' hides a mass of badly thought out, in many instances, and inappropriate changes which do not improve the lot of Australians. Tax reform is supposed to be about achieving efficiency, simplicity and equity. Certainly the changes this Government introduced into the tax arena have been far from that. The hundreds and hundreds of pages that have been added to the Income Tax Assessment Act have not achieved that aim. One great reform that sections of the Government tentatively set out on at one stage was Mr Keating's attempt to smarten up the whole tax structure. Of course, that attempt was sabotaged by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in a secret meeting in a Canberra hotel. Mr Keating's attempts to have an effective change in the tax structure by introducing a different approach were sabotaged. Senator Stone —Mr Keating wasn't even there, was he? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Stone says, Mr Keating was not even given the courtesy of being asked to attend the secret meeting at which he was stabbed in the back by his leader. In this legislation there are more examples of what is loosely called reform. Let me deal with a few aspects of it. The company tax rate has been increased from 46c to 49c in the dollar. The Government argues that this helps to defray the cost of the new imputation system which has been welcomed by many people. What it has really done-this is the practicality of the issue-is increase the company tax rate to the top personal income tax rate. Clearly, there are benefits for the Government in doing that because it makes certain that a person does not benefit from changing his status in order to get a more beneficial personal tax rate as against a corporate tax rate if he is on the top of the personal income tax scale. What is the real purpose of doing this? For heaven's sake, the Government says that it will totally review corporate tax rates. If it is going to do that, one assumes from all the hype and propaganda about it that it is aimed at reducing the corporate tax rate. Why is the Government increasing the corporate tax rate if its intention is to reduce it, unless it is to have the phoney hype, the phoney self-congratulation which will take place when the tax rate is eventually reduced by 3 per cent more than it will be reduced in reality? In other words, it is putting up the tax rate by 3 per cent in order that it may congratulate itself even more when it ultimately reduces the rate. Senator Maguire —What about tax imputation? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —We hear the question, `What about tax imputation?'. I have just been explaining-the honourable senator would know this if he had been listening-that whether or not there is tax imputation this Government apparently plans, unless it is again seeking to mislead the Australian people, which I would not put past it, to reduce the company tax rate. If it intends to reduce it, the claim that it is increasing it temporarily to offset the imputation system clearly falls down. There is a great case for ensuring that it should not increase the rate because, presumably, that would decrease its enthusiasm for proceeding speedily with the company tax reduction which is clearly needed and which has been foreshadowed by this Government. In any event it could well be argued that if the Government is determined to make the corporate tax rate and the personal tax rate the same-49c in the dollar-perhaps it would be more sensible to have them at the same rate but at a lower level. Many people take the strong view, as I do, that in income tax terms Australians are overtaxed. I hope that the review of the corporate tax arrangements proceeds speedily. While it is recognised that the Australian tax rate of 49 per cent is offset in some areas for some companies by various deductions-in contrast with the trend in the United States and some other areas where the rate is significantly lower-of course it would be far more attractive for foreign investors who wished to assist us in the sort of investment of which we are desperately short at the moment, investment aimed at increasing our capacity to export and increasing our capacity to replace the extraordinarily high volume of imports that is taking place, which is the fundamental crisis we now face in Australia, if the corporate tax rate were lower. A lot of the criticism and complaint in Australia about the low rates of tax paid by some corporations could be resolved if there were a generally lower tax rate and fewer opportunities for people to minimise paying tax; in other words, if we followed overseas tax arrangements. Along with the other Bills being debated, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) is chock full of revisions to Labor's previous legislation. The Government seems to have developed a pattern whereby it brings in legislation, dumps more constraints and taxes on people, finds that the legislation is not working well enough and brings in more legislation to tighten it even further. As Mr Peacock said in the House of Representatives, this Bill is full of alterations to hastily prepared and obviously ill-considered legislation. He continued: Honourable members may care to note that the largest number of those revisions apply to the capital gains tax legislation. Of course it does, and that underlines the reality that when this Government continues to rush ahead not on what is required but on some philosophic, extraordinary approach to running this nation we end up with these wonderful words that the Government dumped on us-unintended consequences. This is one of the many Bills aimed at resolving some of the unintended consequences-which is another term for injustice-that abounds. The whole question of the capital gains tax seems to fit in with the Government's philosophic view that the wealthy should somehow be punished. Let us recognise that this Government is not thinking simply of the rich people of Australia when it talks about the wealthy. It is talking about the great bulk of Australians, those who dare, for example, to own their own home, who have tried to put some money aside for their old age. The intention to have a wealth inquiry is not really aimed at the few Australians who have conspicuous wealth. There would be no benefit in wasting public money on such an inquiry if it were aimed only at that small minority of Australians-and in any event, the wealth of many of them has significantly diminished over the past week or so. Senator Haines —Serves them right. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I do not make that kind of moral judgment. I do not play God in these areas, as do the Australian Democrats in so many instances. I take the view that, if people contribute to society and work hard, they are entitled to accumulate resources and are entitled to reward. The manner in which they do it is of interest only to the extent that the accumulation of those assets leads to the creation of jobs in this nation. If we did not have an accumulation of assets, an accumulation of what the Australian Labor Party (ALP) likes to describe in a disparaging way as `wealth', we would not have the capacity to invest in new plant and equipment and we would not have the capacity to create new jobs unless we called on the Government to do it for us, in which case we would end up with the sort of socialist society that apparently many people in the socialist left of the ALP still seek to obtain. Senator Stone —Senator Haines has suggested that anybody who invests on the stock exchange deserves what he gets, including those people who have invested their money in superannuation funds. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I think that Senator Stone has made an excellent point, noting that some of the major investors in Australian stock markets have been ordinary Australians whose superannuation funds have invested in shares so that the future of these people can be provided for when they retire. It is absolutely absurd for Senator Haines or anyone else to dismiss people who buy shares on stock exchanges as simply being gamblers and deserving all they get if the market falls. We should recognise that very few Australians who are involved in superannuation funds in preparing for their retirement will not be affected-not because they have gambled but because they have invested in Australian corporations and have assisted in the provision of capital for the creation of jobs and the creation of new plant and equipment aimed at resolving the economic crisis that this Government has helped Australia into. It should be noted that it is because of the lack of local capital, which is one of the factors in the disastrous collapse of investment in new plant and equipment and one of the structural crises that we face, that we are not exporting enough and why we must import so much. However, that is a diversion. I will deal now with the ALP's whole attack on the concept of `wealth': in other words, people being entitled to get rewards for effort. That is really striking at the heart of small business in Australia, at the heart of the entrepreneurs-the real spirit, if you like, of the Australian people. The Taxation Institute of Australia has highlighted that one of the most serious deficiencies of the legislation is the inadequate provision for dealing with the roll-over of business assets in relation to capital gains tax. There is no doubt that that is a serious problem. The Treasurer forecast in the Budget an increase in investment in plant and equipment of only, I think, 3 per cent. He has been travelling around the world saying that this year it will be more than that. I doubt very much whether that forecast in the Budget will be met in view of what has happened in recent weeks, let alone the significant increase that he tried to suggest while he was overseas. There is no doubt that investment in new plant and equipment is the basis on which economic growth will occur in Australia, but it has simply not happened. The Taxation Institute, when dealing with this area of the legislation, said that this deficiency was a serious disincentive to business investment where a small businessman, for example, had a question of doubt over whether capital gains tax was applicable when he rolled over an asset. I will explain what happens in the case of a small businessman, for example, wishing to upgrade his premises or move into new and expanded premises. He must pay capital gains tax on the disposal of the old premises with no roll-over relief. That seems to me to be absurd because he is not going to take a major profit but is going to put the money back into buying a new, bigger and better area where he can employ more people. Clearly, that type of situation is intolerable. There are many more areas that I would like to deal with-and intend to deal with-in terms of the amendments that we plan to move in the committee stage, but I think it is vital to stress that the most important contribution that can be made to getting Australia out of the major crisis it is in-and the most important contribution that can be made to removing the level of poverty in Australia to reduce the proportion of Australians who are poor-is not to have the sort of approach that this Government has of taxing capital gains or diminishing the incentive to invest or having wealth inquiries and wealth taxes. The best way to do it is to reduce the high level of unemployment, and that can be achieved only by quickening the pace of economic advance in Australia and by increasing the level of investment in new plant and equipment. In fact, the Government is doing exactly the opposite. The only way to achieve what is required is for the Government to do exactly the opposite in relation to the sorts of policies that it is pursuing. I will deal quickly with changes in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3). Clause 15 of that Bill seeks to replace existing sections 108 and 109 of the Income Tax Assessment Act to remove certain technical deficiencies which have become apparent in the legislation's application. New legislation is being introduced to cover the instances where loans and reimbursements are made to associates of shareholders. The Opposition has no problem with that principle, but it does draw attention to the fact that there is some concern that the revisions to section 108, in particular, could result in a deal of uncertainty in the minds of those who are making what could be considered legitimate intercorporate loans, because the decision on what constitutes a legitimate or illegitimate use of loans is made at the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation. Now discretion obviously must be given to the Commissioner in many instances, but the big question is: How often should this discretion be given, how wide should it be and to what extent is it a government's duty to give a clear indication to the Commissioner of the manner in which that discretion should be exercised? In this particular instance it appears that there is an open-ended aspect of the discretion which is inappropriate and creates uncertainty and may well hinder business investment. It would seem appropriate in this case that the Government should request the Commissioner to draw up extensive guidelines as to what he expects will be covered by section 108. In conclusion, I restate my hope that the Government will respond to the concerns that we have raised with the Treasurer about Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) in relation to some specific matters. In that event, if there is a response, I hope that we can deal with the matter today. I hope that otherwise the committee stage can be deferred until we receive a response from the Treasurer. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(12.15) —The Senate is debating three Taxation Bills jointly. The Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 2) formally declares the rate of income tax for the current financial year and subsequent years, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) contains anti-tax avoidance measures relating to the imputation of company dividends and the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill increases the Medicare levy from 1.145 per cent to 1.25 per cent of taxable income and lifts the threshold below which people will be exempt from Medicare levy. The first two Bills form part of the Hawke Government's tax reform package. That package, which has been progressively implemented since 1985, involves a major overhaul of the Australian taxation system. The package that we began implementing after the National Taxation Summit in 1985 aims to restore fairness and equity to the tax system by reducing marginal income tax rates for pay as you earn taxpayers and by cracking down on the tax avoiders and evaders who, regrettably, still exist in the community. The main difference between the Hawke Government's tax package and the Liberal Party's July election tax bribes is that the Government's tax cuts will be paid for out of tax base broadening measures-that is, a number of measures to broaden the tax base to include further activities in the definition of income, whereas the Liberals' tax bribe for the July election would have blown out the Budget deficit instead. Had Mr Howard's tax policy bribed enough electors, we would have seen a massive blow-out in the Commonwealth Government's Budget deficit. To refresh the memories of honourable senators, I point out that some of the base-broadening measures that we have implemented in this tax package have included items such as the fringe benefits tax, a tax levied on non-monetary incomes earned by a number of the high-fliers in the community. That very fair measure, implemented by this Government, was opposed by the Liberal Party. At the end of 1985 we cracked down on the tax subsidised business lunch which was enjoyed by a minority who had long lunches at the expense of the taxpayer. That measure, again opposed by the Liberal and National parties, was estimated to have saved revenue of $300m a year. That is a stupendous amount of money through the crackdown on tax subsidised lunches. Then this Government introduced the capital gains tax, one of the fairest capital gains taxes in the world, because it indexed asset values for inflation. It was a long overdue tax measure which was very important in cracking down on tax avoidance in the community. It stopped people converting income which was taxable into a non-taxable gain. That income tax avoidance measure was removed by this Government after strenuous opposition by the conservative parties. The Government introduced a package of measures involving the fringe benefits tax and ending the tax-subsidised lunch and the introduction of the capital gains tax, to promote fairness. The Opposition parties in this place sought to oppose those measures, which brought greater fairness and social justice into the taxation system. In looking at those measures it was interesting to recall a speech made some weeks ago in this place by Senator Cooney in regard to the Australia Card. He pointed out that there had been a pattern of opposition by the Liberal and National parties to those measures which brought greater fairness to the tax system. It was not as though they were opposing those measures in isolation, which was one of the fictions they tried to create in the debate on the Australia Card. In fact, every one of the measures in the tax package introduced by this Government which cracked down on those who were avoiding tax, which made the wealthy pay their fair share of tax, was opposed by the Opposition parties. We are all indebted to Senator Cooney for pointing out that pattern of opposition. The final instalment of the Hawke Government's tax package as it relates to income tax is being delivered in this financial year as from 1 July. The tax rate cuts encompassed in one of the pieces of legislation came into effect on 1 July, and to date the tax cuts for a person earning $400 weekly up to 30 June this year were estimated to be $13 to $14 a week. These further reductions in income tax, which apply in this financial year, add to those $13 to $14 a week reductions for somebody on $400 weekly. The Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 2) sets out the marginal tax rates for 1987-88 and subsequent years. As I have pointed out, they enable even further reductions to occur in income tax rates in the community. In effect, the legislation constitutes stage 3 of the Government's reductions in marginal income tax rates, beginning with the first round from November 1984, the second round from last year, and the third round from July 1987. The rates include a marginal tax rate of 40c in the dollar on annual taxable incomes between $19,500 and $35,000, and a top marginal rate of 49c in the dollar for annual taxable incomes above $35,000. The rates in that tax distribution represent substantial reductions in marginal tax for taxpayers. It should be noted that the average tax rates-the rates of tax on all dollars in a person's income-are well below those marginal tax rates. In recent years the Liberals on a number of occasions have tried to create the fiction that the tax rate effectively paid by all taxpayers was the same as their marginal tax rate. They were trying to create the fiction that the tax paid on all dollars of a person's income was the same as the marginal tax rate, which is the rate paid on the last or the highest dollars of a person's income. It is interesting to note that, in the 1985-86 financial year, while there was a marginal rate of 46c in the dollar on a number of incomes, the average rate-that is, the rate paid on all dollars of a person's income subject to that marginal rate-was 21.5c in the dollar. I make the point that there are very big differences between marginal and average tax rates, and the fiction that the Liberal Party and its allies in the National Party have tried to promote can be shown to be discredited by the use of those figures. This legislation provides for an increase in the income tax threshold to $5,100 in the current financial year. In other words, the first $5,100 of a person's taxable income will now be exempt from taxation. That is a figure that never existed when the Liberals sat on the treasury bench. The best they could achieve was a tax threshold of $4,595; we are exempting the first $5,100 from tax. It is interesting to note that this Government has cut the top marginal tax rate-that is, the rate of tax applying in the highest income bracket-from 60c in the dollar to 49c in the dollar. The bottom marginal tax rate has been lowered from 30c in the dollar, as it was under Mr Howard, to 24c in the dollar. That measure will be of great benefit to low income earners, including those who receive social security payments. The $5,100 tax free income provided by the threshold, combined with the reduction in marginal tax rates from 30c in the dollar in the lowest income bracket under Mr Howard to 24c in the dollar now, will provide that much more of a pensioner's income and the income of a low salary earner will be exempted from taxation. For example, in this financial year a person receiving the $250 pensioner rebate will find that instead of $5,914 of income being exempt from taxation, as was the case last financial year, the figure will be $6,142. As that pensioner rebate shades out on higher incomes, it can be shown that pensioners will receive some taxation relief up to and including a taxable income of $8,142 this financial year. This is a quite important taxation relief measure for those receiving social security pensions. The middle tax bracket for this financial year will be reduced from 46c in the dollar to 40c. That is the most important bracket in the community, it is where the largest single number of wage and salary earners are to be found. As I pointed out, their marginal tax rate will be lowered this financial year from 46c in the dollar to 40c in the dollar. From these figures it can be seen that the Hawke Government has delivered its promise to reduce tax rates for ordinary Australians. There have been very substantial reductions in marginal tax rates, beginning in 1984, occurring again in 1986 and finally on 1 July this year. The Hawke Government has achieved the reductions in marginal income tax rates that Mr Howard found impossible in his five years as Treasurer. It has to be remembered that Mr Howard, who is the present Leader of the Opposition, brought down five Budgets as the Commonwealth Treasurer from 1978 to 1982 inclusive. In five Budgets he had the opportunity to frame Australia's taxation policy. It is quite illuminating to look at those Budgets and to realise that when Mr Howard left office in 1983 the top marginal tax rate was still 60c in the dollar. As I have pointed out, under this Government the highest marginal tax-the rate of tax applying in the highest income bracket-has been lowered to 49c in the dollar. When Mr Howard left office in 1983 after bringing down five Budgets as Commonwealth Treasurer, the marginal income tax rate faced by the lowest income earners in the community was 30c in the dollar. But now, as a result of the tax package introduced by the Hawke Government, the marginal tax rate is 24c in the dollar-or 6c in the dollar lower than the best marginal tax rate Mr Howard, as Treasurer, was ever able to achieve. It is little wonder, therefore, that the Australian electorate on 11 July rejected Mr Howard's tax bribes. Clearly his performance as Treasurer could not give people confidence that he would be able to deliver promises made in an election context. As Mr Howard was not able to cut taxes from 1978 to 1983 why should anyone believe him now? It is a very relevant point to raise. Why should anyone believe someone who, in the present day and age, says that he can cut taxes when his very record in government clearly shows a total incapability to do so? The Liberal Party's credibility on taxation is in tatters. It was incapable of cutting taxes during the years Mr Howard presided over the Treasury. Mr Howard procrastinated over tax cuts, just as he did on the matter of deregulation. That has been exposed in the last few days in the biography of Mr Fraser. It says that Mr Howard, despite the image created, was a procrastinator on deregulation just as he was on the matter of tax reductions and tax reform in Australia. The Liberals were incapable of putting together a tax package which added up at the last election. Of course Senator Michael Baume, who preceded me in this debate, was one of the people who pulled the rug from under the Liberal Party's policies in the election. I well remember door-knocking in a key marginal electorate on the day after Senator Baume announced the Liberals' health policy. It was quite evident that the voters were swinging to Labor as they came to terms with that health policy, which did not add up and which confused them and conflicted with the Liberals' overall tax policies. We certainly owe Senator Michael Baume a great debt for that particular gaffe in putting down a health policy which did not add up in the context of the Opposition's tax policy. Irresponsibility and opportunism are the hallmarks of the Liberals' approach to tax reform over the past two years. The Liberals and the Nationals opposed all this Government's major tax base broadening measures and anti-tax avoidance measures. Those are the facts and the realities. On the other hand, the Liberals and the Nationals in this place were quite prepared to support the reductions in marginal income tax rates and the so-called poverty trap measures which gave taxation relief to people receiving social welfare payments. In other words, the Liberals blocked the measures that would have raised extra revenue for the Government, but supported those which cost the Government revenue. The Liberals and the Nationals wanted the tax package goodies but not the tax nasties. Of course, we were warned about this some time ago when a document was leaked out of a shadow Cabinet meeting. I think the author was Senator Messner, from South Australia. To give him credit, he warned his colleagues on the Opposition front bench that they would be seen as being rather grubby and tatty if they were to go around the country opposing all the so-called tax nasties but endorsing the tax goodies which reduced taxes and revenue available to the Government. The Opposition glibly promises tax cuts but shirks proposing the measures to pay for them. Mr Howard claims that he will cut Government expenditure to pay for tax cuts. But at the last election Mr Howard was not able to tell the Australian people just which government programs would be cut. He could not and would not specify the areas. He would not do it this week, either. Again he has been challenged on the areas where he would cut government programs and spending, but he has not come up with any specifics. Yesterday I raised the question of Senator Stone's position on this matter, because he also has been talking about cutting government programs, but he too has been quite non-specific about the areas in which he would prefer to see government spending cut. The Liberals' tax and fiscal policies are built on shifting sands, and their promised tax cuts are merely a mirage. The Opposition has criticised the Government for the level of tax receipts in the Budget, but again it is suffering from selection amnesia. On the one hand it criticises us for the level of tax receipts in the Budget, but on the other hand, it wants to forget all about its own record in government. It is very interesting to compare total Commonwealth receipts and income tax receipts at the end of the Howard years with the figures for the beginning of that period. When looking at these figures we should remember that, broadly speaking, over the period that Mr Howard was the Treasurer of this nation he was advised by the then Secretary to the Treasury, Senator Stone. They were both in their respective positions as Treasurer and Secretary to the Treasury over the same period. It is very interesting that day after day and week after week Opposition senators claim that this Government has rapidly increased the share of taxation as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). But it is very illuminating to look at what happened when Mr Howard was Treasurer and Mr Stone was advising him. It is interesting that between the financial years 1977-78 and 1982-83, the share of Australia's GDP, taken by Commonwealth taxation through the Budget, actually rose. It did not fall, it rose. It rose by 1.5 percentage points. These facts are readily available in Budget Paper No. 1. I invite honourable senators to read them. They are not figures I have pulled out of the air. Despite the claims by the Liberals in the mid-1970s that they would cut taxes and despite the claims by Mr Howard that he would reform taxation and reduce the level of taxation in the economy, the record shows the opposite. From the beginning to the end of the Howard years the share of gross domestic product taken by Commonwealth taxation rose by 1.5 percentage points. As I have pointed out, Senator Stone was Mr Howard's chief adviser in the Public Service. He presided over the Department of the Treasury during a period when the share of gross domestic product taken by taxation rose. So I am rather offended, as I am sure other senators are, when Liberals and Nationals come into this place and try to lecture those of us in the Hawke Government who have been involved in the tax reform process for over two years. When they lecture us about cutting taxes they should look at their own record. They should be honest enough to acknowledge that, under Mr Howard's stewardship of the Treasury, taxation took an increasing share of Australia's resources. The Liberals' record and the Liberals' rhetoric cannot be reconciled. Senator Stone said here on 7 October that no purpose was served in examining the economic record of the Fraser-Howard Government. I remind honourable senators that that record included double digit inflation, double digit price rises and double digit unemployment. If the Fraser-Howard Government had had a successful, rather than unsuccessful, economic record, would Senator Stone be so modest? Would he then want to bury the past? Would he then want history to be ignored? That is a very relevant question and needs to be asked. Obviously, Senator Stone is sensitive about his record under the Fraser Government, and so he should be. The Fraser Government left office with double digit unemployment and double digit price rises. The credibility of words can be judged only by corresponding actions. The Fraser-Howard Government's inability to cut taxes lends very little credibility to the Opposition's criticism of the Hawke Government's tax reform package. The Hawke Government has delivered its promise to reduce marginal tax rates. These tax cuts have been paid for by base-broadening measures, such as the capital gains tax, the cracking down on tax-subsidised lunches and the taxation of so-called fringe benefits. These measures have reduced the extent of tax avoidance in the community. I am pleased to say, as a government senator, that income tax is no longer a voluntary tax for the wealthy, as it was in the Howard years. The Government's tax reform package has lowered the tax burden on the great majority of honest taxpayers by closing the tax loopholes and ending the rorts. The result is a fairer and more efficient tax system. In contrast, the Opposition's approach to tax reform is a sham, more concerned with winning easy votes than with any genuine desire to create equity and efficiency in the community. Debate (on motion by Senator Robert Ray) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12.40 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. I note that the Government has today supported the continuation of the national wage case hearing. I ask: Is it also supporting an across the board wage rise, either the flat $7 a week sought by the Australian Council of Trade Unions or a percentage increase? If it is, does the Minister agree that any such increase will worsen Australia's competitive position by contributing to a rise in unit labour costs about twice the rate of our trading partners? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Walsh has just confirmed my understanding that there is to be no announcement of the Government's position in this respect until tomorrow. Under the circumstances I do not think it would be appropriate for me to pre-empt the Government's publicly stated position on this matter. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an outrageous claim made in the Queensland Parliament yesterday that the Federal Government had ordered the Royal Australian Navy to steal a Queensland lighthouse? Is it correct for Queensland's chief law officer, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Clauson, to state that the lighthouse belongs to Queensland? Can it be assumed that the emotive language used by Mr Clauson is merely another attempt by the National Party of Australia to direct attention away from the Queensland State Government's sorry record of maladministration? Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr President. It takes a considerable stretch of the imagination to suggest that that is a proper question. The final part of that question invites an expression of opinion from the Minister in a way which is quite absurd. I suggest that, in the interests of the Senate and of an orderly Question Time, at least the last part of the question should be ruled out of order. The PRESIDENT —I think there were two distinct parts to the question. I think the Minister should answer only the first part of the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —All I want to say as to the first part of the question is that it is hard for anyone in Queensland to upstage the idiocy we all know of the Premier of that State, but Mr Clauson seems to be doing his best to do just that. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: It seems to me that the Minister, in his pique at being denied the right to respond to an improper question, is now indulging in unparliamentary language about the Premier of Queensland. He should be told to withdraw. The PRESIDENT —The Minister should watch the way that he describes the Premier of Queensland. Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me just say that Mr Clauson's allegation was in the following terms-and I am explaining why it is in my portfolio jurisdiction-- Senator Lewis —I take a point of order, Mr President. I do not want to repeat the words that the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate used, but they should be withdrawn. He is not entitled to make such references to the Premier of a State. The PRESIDENT —At the time that the point of order was taken by Senator Chaney I had not heard the remark because I had been talking to an attendant. I have since been told what it was. I ask Senator Evans to withdraw. Senator GARETH EVANS —Certainly, Mr President. Mr Clauson's allegation was such as to generate a response of that kind insofar as he said: I am certain people in both New South Wales and Queensland will condemn the scurrilous underhanded use of the armed forces by Senator Evans and the Federal Government to steal property- that is, one lighthouse- from Queensland. Under those circumstances I think I am entitled to be a little stroppy about the nature of the claim that has been made. Moreover, I make it absolutely clear, lest there be any doubt in Senator Chaney's or anyone else's mind, that I am the Minister for lighthouses insofar as my portfolio responsibility is concerned. Senator Robert Ray —The light on the hill. Senator GARETH EVANS —And, as Senator Ray properly interjects, I am responsible for lights on hills too. To correct the factual basis of this extraordinary claim, let me say this for the record: it is quite incorrect for Mr Clauson to claim Queensland ownership of the Cape Bowling Green lighthouse. There is absolutely no question that the navigational aid facilities at Cape Bowling Green belong to the Federal Government. It is up to the Federal Government to decide what action should be taken in relation to those facilities. The Cape Bowling Green lighthouse tower had reached the end of its economic life and was proving very costly to maintain. The decision was taken to replace it with a low maintenance steel tower surmounted by a modern solar powered light. The original tower has been transferred to the National Maritime Museum, under the custody of my learned and competent ministerial colleague Senator Richardson. The Museum made arrangements for the transport of the tower from Queensland. The tower will be a major feature of the National Maritime Museum in Sydney where it will be available to be viewed by all Australian and overseas visitors who have an interest in our maritime history. By way of contrast, the Cape Bowling Green site does not have road access. Very few people would have had the opportunity to see the tower at its original location. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. The question follows the Minister's answer to Senator Chaney on Monday concerning Rothwells Ltd. Has the Minister yet obtained from the Treasurer, as he said he would, further details of the Burke Government's commitment in this matter? Is the Minister concerned that the State Government has exposed itself to a possible liability, as ultimate guarantor, in the order of $150m? Does he agree with today's Australian Financial Review editorial that the Burke Government should never have allowed itself to be drawn into the rescue operation and that `it set an over-sized precedent for an under-sized problem'? Senator WALSH —I do not believe that I said on Monday that I would get the details of the property buy-back. If I remember correctly, I did say that I would check out with the Treasurer my belief that neither any member of the Government nor any Commonwealth officials were involved in discussions about it. I am afraid I have not done that, and I apologise for that. I expect that, were that not the case, the Treasurer or his office would have contacted me. But I will check that out before tomorrow. To the best of my knowledge, there was no involvement of Commonwealth officials. In regard to guarantees, as I understand it, the State Government has guaranteed up to $150m after the guarantees of the private consortium have been fully called up. But it may not be necessary to call them up at all. It was published in yesterday's West Australian that the State Government is making a charge for the guarantee and will make a lot of money out of it. I do not know whether the State Government intends to go into the trading bank business or thinks it is more astute than the Westpac Banking Corporation or National Australia Bank Ltd. I suppose one could argue in a very indirect or even an implicit way that the Commonwealth Government might be seen to be guaranteeing the financial activities of State governments. If there is thought to be a problem about that, I think the Government of the Northern Territory is the first government that the Commonwealth Government should be worried about in the area of fiscal irresponsibility. I certainly cannot see how there would be any explicit risk-- Senator Chaney —There is a clear case of double standards-one standard for a non-Labor government and a different standard for a Labor government. Senator WALSH —There is nothing new about double standards. Senator Chaney and his lot have been practising them for as long as I can remember. But I cannot see how there could be any explicit risk to the Commonwealth in that guarantee. Senator ALSTON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. My question to the Minister involved soliciting a comment upon the Australian Financial Review editorial. I ask: Does the Minister view with equanimity the prospect of a State government's involvement in what is essentially a private commercial undertaking? Is he prepared to state publicly his view of the desirability of such conduct being repeated in the future? Senator WALSH —No. Senator AULICH —Can the Minister for the Environment and the Arts inform the Senate of what action the Government proposes to take to rectify the problems caused by the condition of the road from Ayers Rock to the Olgas? Will the Minister confirm whether one of those proposals involves the construction of a monorail? Senator RICHARDSON —The existing road that links Ayers Rock and the Olgas is in a very bad condition; that would have to be conceded. Senator Tambling —Why? Senator RICHARDSON —The first reason is that it is an unformed road, so obviously it requires constant grading. Because of the conditions prevailing in the area, that is, the number of tourist buses which run up and down this unformed road, often at high speed, the condition of the road deteriorates rapidly after grading. Since 1980 the Commonwealth has spent some $1 1/2m upgrading and sealing the road around Ayers Rock and the access road within the park to Yulara. Senator Walters —Barry Cohen wants a McDonalds on top of Ayers Rock. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Walters could go as Ronald as it would not require much dressing up. This year the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service will be spending $300,000 on the roads and next year a further $200,000 is already planned. We must remember that, in the last few years, there has been spectacular growth in tourism in the area. Since freehold title was granted to the traditional owners there has been a 30 per cent increase in tourism. Obviously, it requires detailed consideration by the Government and by the Uluru Board of Management to look at ways and means of people gaining access to different parts of the park. Over 200,000 visitors now visit the national park each year. Many of them wish to visit the Olgas and appropriate access to the Olgas is, therefore, high on the Government's agenda. The alignment of the existing road is of concern. There are difficulties in changing the alignment because of Aboriginal sacred sites which would be under threat with the movement of the alignment, so it has been difficult and costly to upgrade what we have to proper standards. One option which is being looked at is a new sealed road on a slightly different route acceptable to the owners. Cost estimates for that vary between $6m and $8m. That is a lot of money at a time of economic restraint and, obviously, alternative options must be considered. One of those options which have been put up from time to time and which appears to have caused some interest in the last 24 hours is a monorail, which could be called a people mover, as Senator McKiernan suggested yesterday. At the moment all we are looking at is a suggestion; the Government has no concrete proposal before it. It is a gleam in the eye of a number of people in the National Parks and Wildlife Service and has been discussed by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown, in recent days. Because there is no concrete proposal, obviously there has been nothing to discuss with the Uluru Board of Management; therefore there is no concurrence with that Board to agree on any particular option. Once all the different options have been evaluated and their advantages and disadvantages weighed up and critically assessed, they will be submitted to the Uluru Board for its consideration. If that ever occurs, obviously the Board will advise me of its views in due course. Whatever happens, the Government would initiate an environmental impact statement on any option that was being seriously considered. Depending upon which option is considered to be the most suitable to improve access to the Olgas in a cost effective way, it may or may not be necessary to amend the National Park Plan of Management. That is operative for another four years. At this stage there is no plan to amend it, but it is possible. Park management at all times is complex. At Uluru it is essential to protect-- Opposition senators interjecting- Senator RICHARDSON —Mr President, a lot of people are interested in this issue and I am doing my best to enlighten them. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Minister, notoriously, has had no knowledge at all of most of the questions addressed to him and one can understand his desire to give an extensive answer when he actually has some information about a matter. But I think the Minister clearly is making a statement and not answering a question. He has been on his feet for a very long time and I ask you to direct him to give his answer and to sit down and allow Question Time to proceed. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I have no power to direct a Minister how to answer a question. At the moment the Minister is answering the question that he was asked. Senator RICHARDSON —Thank you, Mr President. Had it not been for the number of interjections my answer would have been over sooner. As I was saying, park management is difficult at any time and it is particularly complex at Uluru because of the cultural and social values of so many of the areas that we have to manage. If we are to understand better the wishes not only of the local Board of Management and the people it represents but also the hundreds of thousands of visitors who visit the area each year, we need to consider any option carefully. That is exactly what the Government will do if and when such an option is placed before it. Senator JENKINS —Is the Minister for Finance aware of the sale of two Perth central business property interests by Mr Laurie Connell to the Western Australian State Government Insurance Office? Is the Minister concerned about the Western Australian Government's decision to sell these interests only to Mr Connell at a loss of about $14m on current valuations, or to Mr Alan Bond at a loss of $10m on current valuations? Does this decision not conflict with the aggressive market force approach of the Federal Government to the management of public assets? Is the Government concerned about the staggering loss to Western Australian taxpayers through this deliberate undervaluation of government-owned assets? Senator WALSH —I do not know where Senator Jenkins got the figures of $14m and $10m from. I do not know whether they are correct. All I know about the property purchase and the buy-back clause is that there is a buy-back clause, but I am not aware of the details of it. Perhaps Senator Jenkins has some information that I do not have. I find it rather ironic, however, that the fairies at the bottom of the garden party is attacking any government for allegedly giving away government assets, or getting less for government assets than it should, when the same fairies at the bottom of the garden party sabotaged the Government's attempt to extract the economic rent from broadcasting licences through a tender system. Senator COOK —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to Senator Robert Hill's excellent contribution to the debate on tax reform which he made in the course of his maiden speech in 1981 when, amongst other things, he said: On a broader plane, taxation considerations should not interfere with the otherwise most efficient economic decisions. He also said: A more equitable, efficient and simple taxation mix may provide as much encouragement to increased levels of saving and investment as a general tax cut. Will the Government consider those propositions in the course of its review of business taxation? Can the Minister provide an opportunity for Senator Hill to expand on the views which he put forward in his maiden speech in relation to business taxation so that they can be considered in the course of the Government's business tax review? If not, why not? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I understand that the question is related to whether the Government would make time available for a debate or a statement. Since Senator Evans is the relevant Minister, I would have thought the question should be addressed to him. The question in no way relates to the Minister's responsibilities for finance or for the Treasury. The PRESIDENT —The last part of the question does not relate to the Minister's responsibilities, but the first part does. I would ask Senator Walsh to answer the question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. If Senator Hill still holds the views that he held when he made his extremely good maiden speech in the Senate, in which he also advocated a capital gains tax, or, indeed, if he has any views at all, if he cares to submit them either directly to the Treasurer or indirectly through me, I can assure him that I will pass those views on to the Treasurer. I will be interested to see what they are. I think it unlikely, however, that Senator Hill will be going public on the question of tax reform, because he felt the heel of the South Australian Liberal Party boot a few months ago and was dropped from first place to third place on the Liberal Party Senate ticket for espousing traditional small `1' Liberal Party views. Senator Puplick —You were much more pleasant when you were drunk last night. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Puplick will withdraw that comment. Senator Puplick —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to answers the Minister gave last Monday on the views of Professor Galbraith, which the Minister indicated at the time were known to and supported by the Government, and to his statement at that time that the Government simply did not see any need for, and had no plans for, a mini-Budget. I ask the Minister whether this is the same Professor Galbraith who, in his book `The Great Crash 1929', predicted that, in the event of a future major speculative share market crash, government policy inaction was likely in the short term, even though it would mean deep trouble in the future, because governments invariably wanted to avoid disturbance of what the professor called their `orderly life and convenience'. If so, I ask the Minister whether he also agrees with Professor Galbraith that, in circumstances such as those now prevailing, government inaction is the real threat to our economic system, or that, to quote the professor, `It is what causes men who know that things are going quite wrong to say that things are fundamentally sound'? Senator WALSH —Somebody asked what the question was. I must confess that I am a little confused about it myself-almost as confused as I am about whether or not Senator Stone believes that there should be some government action and intervention. A few days ago he certainly indicated that governments should keep right out of this area-to the point where governments should return to the sorts of policies they followed in the nineteenth century, or perhaps even the eighteenth century, and, among other things, withdraw the lender of last resort facility that the Reserve Bank of Australia makes available for the trading banks. I was surprised when Senator Stone expressed that view last week, but now he seems to be calling for some government intervention. Senator Stone's own record about government intervention is a very spotty one. When he was Secretary to the Treasury he opposed the floating of the dollar and the entry of foreign banks. He wanted to maintain the variable deposit requirement, he opposed the tariff cuts of 1973, and so on. So Senator Stone's record as a regulator or a deregulator is about as spotty as that of the present Leader of the Opposition. However, I understand some purpose in this line of questioning, and that is, of course, that Senator Stone, like Mr Howard, wants to induce an economic crisis. That is how oppositions think they can get into government in periods of economic crisis. If they think they can induce an economic crisis, they will do all they can to do just that. Last week I spelt out the two major possible consequences of the share market collapse which could damage the real economy; that is, a decline in our export prices or a major withdrawal of capital from Australia. I say again that there is still, to the best of my knowledge, no indication that either of those things has happened. As for a so-called mini-Budget, which is a term that I never use, and I do not think it has ever been used by the Treasurer or the Prime Minister-nobody in the Government that I can recall uses that term-for most of the years we have been in government we have brought out an economic statement in the autumn, and that may be done again. There has been no decision about that, and I suppose it is an option that remains open. Senator SCHACHT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that from Saturday, 10 October to last Saturday, 24 October, there has been a 49.3 per cent increase in the number of Porsches, Rolls-Royces and Range Rovers advertised for sale in the classified advertisements section of the Sydney Morning Herald? In particular, advertisements for Porsche sales increased from 46 to 66; Range Rovers, from 17 to 38; and Rolls-Royces, from four to six. Can the Minister inquire whether such an increase in the sales of these cars is in any way related to owner dissatisfaction with the quality and performance of the cars? Can the Minister also ascertain whether there has been a commensurate increase in the purchase of Australian-made cars, and that hence there will be a benefit to the Australian economy? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I again suggest to you, Mr President, that the question in no way relates to the Minister's responsibilities. It calls for an expression of opinion by the Minister, which is clearly not permitted by the Standing Orders. I would suggest to you that again you are allowing Question Time to degenerate into a farce. Senator Schacht —Mr President, on the point of order: I point out to Senator Chaney that in the last paragraph of my question I asked about benefits to the Australian economy if there has been an increase in the sales of Australian cars. I would have thought that Senator Walsh, representing the Treasurer, had every right to reply to questions about the Australian economy. The PRESIDENT —I will allow the Minister to answer that part of the question. Senator WALSH —Senator Schacht may not be aware of my newly acquired status, but I am also the Acting Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and therefore have a direct ministerial interest in the Australian car industry. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is quite clear that the Minister has misunderstood your ruling. The objection that I made related to a call for an expression of opinion, which is not permitted by the Standing Orders. The fact that he is the Acting Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce is utterly irrelevant. If he thinks that that is going to enable him to stray into the area of the call for an expression of opinion, I suggest to you that he is flouting your ruling. The PRESIDENT —I said that the Minister could answer that part of the question which dealt with his responsibilities and the Australian economy. I would ask that he keep his answer to that line. Senator WALSH —Thank you, Mr President. I have not given any opinions. All I have given so far is a statement of fact-that I am the Acting Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I was asked whether I was aware of the figures. I was broadly aware of the sorts of figures that Senator Schacht quoted. I do not know what the comparative figures for the earlier period are-but I am also aware that in last Saturday morning's Sydney Morning Herald some 156 BMWs and about 220 Mercedes were advertised. I presume that number is also very much larger than the normal number of luxury imported motor cars advertised for sale. As to the effects on the Australian economy, it is likely, given the huge increase in the numbers of these status symbols currently on the second-hand market, that the demand for them could be saturated for some considerable time. If that is the case, it obviously follows that that will make some contribution to reducing our import bill. To the extent that demand is switched away from these very expensive status symbols, it could well have a beneficial spin-off for the Australian motor vehicle industry. Senator VANSTONE —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer the Minister to her answer to my question yesterday with respect to aspects of her bioethical responsibilities. In light of the confusion in that answer and the disparity between it and previous statements, I ask the Minister to clear the confusion and disparity and answer this question: Has the Government made a decision to establish a national bioethics committee and, if so, when was the decision made? Senator RYAN —I will repeat what I said to the Senate yesterday: the Government is considering its response to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Human Embryo Experimentation and it is giving active consideration to the particular part of the report that recommended the establishing of a national committee. A decision has not been made, but we are certainly looking very closely at the possibility of establishing such a committee, what sort of a composition such a committee would have and what its role would be. But no decision as such has been made. Senator VANSTONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister, in light of my question to clear the confusion and disparity between her comments yesterday and earlier statements, how she reconciles her comment today, which is consistent with her comments yesterday, with her statement of 29 July 1987 which says that she `was pleased to announce the establishment of a national bioethics advisory committee'. Senator Crowley —Mr President, I raise a point of order. This is new material and I cannot see how it could possibly be justified as a supplementary question. Senator Chaney —On the point of order, Mr President: The original question specifically referred to the fact that there was a disparity in the information provided. The supplementary question simply directs the Minister's attention to a particular comment which was in conflict with the statement the Minister has just made and the statements she made yesterday. The PRESIDENT —I will allow the supplementary question. Senator RYAN —I simply repeat that the Government is investigating the possibility of establishing such a committee. No final decision has been made. Senator WOOD —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. In the light of recent allegations by the Dalai Lama regarding the siting of nuclear weapons in Tibet, can the Government inform the Senate whether the People's Republic of China (PRC) is deploying nuclear weapons in Tibet and, if so, how many? Can the Government shed any light on the allegations of the dumping of nuclear waste in Tibet, and can it inform the Senate whether the People's Republic of China is building nuclear weapons in Tibet? In the Government's view, to what extent is Tibet's strategic value from a nuclear perspective a factor in preventing the granting of greater autonomy to Tibet? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government of the People's Republic of China does not make information on the deployment of its nuclear weapons publicly available. We are aware of no publicly available sources indicating that China has deployed nuclear weapons in its Tibetan autonomous region. Again, the Government has no information suggesting that nuclear waste is being dumped in the Tibetan autonomous region. It would be logical, however, for China to store nuclear waste in remote areas such as Qinghai and Xinjiang, both to the north of the Tibetan autonomous region. As to the third part of the question, the Government is not aware of the PRC building nuclear weapons in the Tibetan autonomous region. It is our understanding that China's nuclear weapons testing facilities are located in the Lop Nur region of the Xinjiang autonomous region, which, as I said, is further to the north. The Chinese have not publicised the locations in which their nuclear weapons are actually constructed. The matter of the Chinese authorities granting more or less autonomy to the Tibetan autonomous region is one for the central Chinese Government and the people of Tibet to work out for themselves. It is not for the Government of Australia to speculate on the extent to which the strategic nuclear value of Tibet may play a part in relations between the Tibetan autonomous region and the central Government in Beijing. Senator WOOD —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In response to the Minister's suggestion that there was no publicly available documentation, I did provide the Minister yesterday with a copy of evidence given to the United States Congress on the militarisation of Tibet. Would the Minister please try to seek out that information and reply to the question? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sure that my office was aware of that information. It is a matter of determining its status and credibility. I will be happy to follow that up and reply further to Senator Wood on that aspect of the question. Senator REID —Can the Minister for Transport and Communications say how many people presently employed in the Airports Division of the Department of Transport and Communications will be offered positions with the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC)? Given that there are more than 200 people in that section of the Department who for the past 18 months have lived with the trauma and uncertainty of not knowing whether they will be employed by the new Corporation or whether they will have jobs at all, when will they be told about their future and put out of the misery that they are presently suffering? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is news to me that anyone is suffering misery in my Department at the moment, least of all the officers to whom Senator Reid refers. My impression was that all staff employed in performing similar functions to those to be taken over by the FAC on 1 January had been offered appropriate employment. I will follow up straightaway the suggestion that Senator Reid has made, but it is certainly not in conformity with my own understanding. Senator BOLKUS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I ask the Minister whether he has seen reports of the arrest of more than 12 members of the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) in Malaysia. Do these arrests include the head of that Party, the prominent lawyer Karpal Singh, and prominent academic Dr Mustapha? Did these arrests take place under the Malaysian Internal Security Act (ISA)? Will the Australian Government protest at these arbitrary arrests and seek an immediate release of these moderate political figures in Malaysia? Senator GARETH EVANS —Our High Commission in Kuala Lumpur has confirmed reports this morning of the detention in Malaysia of a number of parliamentarians and Opposition figures under that country's Internal Security Act. I understand that the leader of the Democratic Action Party and Leader of the Opposition, Lim Kit Siang, and other members of the DAP are amongst those detained. At this stage we have not received from our High Commission full details of those detained, but I am certainly aware of Press reports referring to the detention of Karpal Singh. The detentions mark the latest in a series of events over the past three weeks stemming from a Chinese education and language issue which appears to have aggravated communal tensions between ethnic Malays and Chinese. I should say in relation to the Internal Security Act that these detentions appear to have been made under the incitement to racial hatred provisions of the ISA. That Act provides for 60 days detention without trial and, with ministerial order, concurrent two-year periods of detention without trial. Might I say on behalf of the Government that we regret the action which the Malaysian Government has taken against duly elected members of the Parliament and prominent community members. We are closely watching events in Malaysia as they unfold. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance in his capacity as Acting Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, of which he boasted before. Press reports state that the Government will soon sign partnership agreements with a number of multinational corporations that have incurred or are likely to incur offset obligations. I ask the Minister: Is it true that offset obligations, including current obligations, will be waived and that in future these companies will not be subject to the provisions of the offsets program? Will the definition for research and development under the partnership agreements be the same as that applying to the 150 per cent taxation concession for research and development? Will the Government's partners also be eligible to claim the 150 per cent tax concession? Finally, what sanctions will be available to the Government if the Government's partners fail to reach the specific targets for research and development spending and exports set out in the agreements? Senator WALSH —I am very pleased to note that Senator Lewis does not share the prevailing ignorance of the other side of the chamber in respect of my newly acquired status as the Acting Minister. I have a bit of paper here which says this: Already six transnationals have announced their intention to enter into partnership in development agreements. I am not sure when multinationals became transnationals, but apparently they are now. To date the companies concerned have committed themselves to additional exports from Australia approaching $300m a year in real terms by 1995. I presume that `in real terms' means in 1987 value dollars. This compares with total current annual exports by the industry of $140m. The undertakings by the transnationals are significantly in excess of the requirements of all existing Commonwealth and State offsets programs and, as a result, both the Commonwealth and participating State governments will waive offsets requirements. The agreements will also provide significant opportunities for indigenous firms to supply products and services to the regional markets. The satisfactory discharge of past offsets obligations is a requirement of pre-qualification to partnership status. The definition of research and development under the partnership agreement will be the same as that applying to the 150 per cent taxation concession for research and development, subject to the additional requirement that the activities undertaken are consistent with the objectives of the offsets program. Eligibility for government research and development assistance will not disqualify activities from eligibility for offsets approval. Finally, the sanctions available to the Government for non-performance by participating companies are the same as those currently applying under the offsets program, for example, withholding clearance for companies tendering for government contracts. Senator COLLINS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to an article in today's Melbourne Sun reporting Opposition Leader John Howard's former advisers-from the thankfully distant days when he was Treasurer-defending him against allegations contained in former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser's biography that Mr Howard had been recalcitrant, stubborn or slow or was simply opposed to pursuing deregulation of Australia's financial markets. Can the Minister advise the Senate whether the statement of Dr John Hewson, MHR, that Mr Howard was responsible for many of the decisions that set up Australia's deregulated financial system is accurate? Senator WALSH —One of the least attractive features of the Tory side of politics in the last few years has been the way that Mr Howard, Mr Fraser and Senator Stone have arranged themselves in the form of an equilateral triangle with each of them firing at the other two and trying to shift the blame for what happened to the Australian economy in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I have been asked whether I have seen the report in this morning's Melbourne Sun. I have indeed seen the report. Towards the end of it, Dr Hewson, former economic adviser to the former Treasurer and now an MHR, stated: . . . Mr Howard substantially pushed through many of the decisions that set up Australia's deregulated financial system. In the same report, I notice, Mr Howard is quoted as having said that Dr Ayres should not rely entirely on Cabinet documents and that they never tell the full story: It's a fundamental weakness to assume you get the full story by looking at Cabinet documents. I would have thought that that implicitly confirms that Cabinet documents do indeed show what Dr Ayres claims they show in the book he has written, which will be launched, I think, today by the President-elect of the Liberal Party. Just who is dumping on whom in the Liberal Party and who is handing it out and who is copping it becomes more and more confusing. Personally-and I am sure that I would have Senator Stone's agreement on this-I would not take too much notice of what Mr Hewson, or Dr Hewson, or Professor Hewson, or whatever he should be called these days, said, because Senator Stone once described Dr Hewson as a mere meretricious player who was flitting across the stage. If anybody wants to look up what the word `meretricious' means, I give one tip: it is not spelt m-e-r-i-t, nor does its meaning have any relationship to merit. It is spelt m-e-r-e-t-r-i-c-i-o-u-s. It might be well worth looking up that word in the dictionary to see precisely what it means. Honourable senators would then know precisely what Senator Stone-Mr Stone, as he then was-thought about Dr Hewson when he described him as a mere meretricious player flitting across the stage. Senator McGAURAN —My question is directed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. In the light of the drop in the Australian dollar in the past few days against major currencies, the markets reporting one reason being concern by foreign institutions that lower world growth would depress commodity prices and reduce Australia's export returns, aggravating the current account deficit and ever increasing foreign debt, does the Minister realise the importance which Australia's sales of wheat to Egypt and like markets play in our current account deficit and the household incomes of wheat farmers? Does the Minister agree that these sales depend on full Government support by way of insurance cover provided by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation and that, according to Press reports, this support has now been placed in question by pending Cabinet discussions? Can the Minister assure the Senate, the financial markets and the wheat farmers that the Government intends maintaining its support for existing arrangements in the area of insurance cover for exports? Senator GARETH EVANS —I ask Senator McGauran to place that question on notice. Senator FOREMAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Justice been drawn to the article in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning reporting comments by Mr Reith, shadow Attorney-General, that the power of the States to veto references to the National Crime Authority (NCA) should be reviewed? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Commonwealth or the States have ever exercised that power? What is the Government's view of the efficacy of the intergovernmental committee? Senator TATE —My attention has been drawn to the newspaper article referred to by Senator Foreman, who takes a keen interest in matters of law enforcement in its various jurisdictions throughout Australia. Having had this matter drawn to my attention, I have looked at the Press release put out by Mr Peter Reith in which he said that the NCA should operate free of political direction and veto. I find that a very misleading use of language because, as I have always made it very clear to this chamber, it has never been the case-certainly not in my predecessor's time or in mine-that any political direction of the National Crime Authority has been attempted. If it were attempted, I am sure that it would be repudiated and commented upon, even publicly, by Mr Justice Stewart. The idea that the National Crime Authority should be subject to political direction is one that would be abhorred by all sides of this chamber. The function of the intergovernmental committee is to approve references given to the National Crime Authority. When the National Crime Authority seeks a reference into a particular type of organised criminal activity and/or against particular targeted criminal figures it is very important that an intergovernmental committee review that request to undertake those sorts of investigations. Once a reference is given to the National Crime Authority the whole range of very special and extraordinary powers conferred on that Authority by legislation of this Parliament are then brought into play-powers of a coercive kind that go far beyond those available to the ordinary law enforcement agencies and police forces throughout the Commonwealth. For example, I refer to the power to summon people and require answers, powers of arrest and powers which can lead to a person forfeiting his passport. It is very important that we, as politicians, take responsibility on that intergovernmental committee, which in general consists of the Police Ministers of the various jurisdictions, for the exercise within Australia of those extraordinary powers, which, as I have said, can be used against those who might be targeted crime figures or ordinary citizens who the Authority might think could be useful as it gathers intelligence and assembles evidence for a prosecution. There is also probably a misunderstanding by Mr Reith. The fact is that in a purely Commonwealth matter, for example, a taxation conspiracy, a reference can be obtained by the Authority seeking the approval of the Commonwealth Minister and the concurrence of the States is not needed. But such is the overlap in criminal activities throughout Australia that, of course, it is very rare for the sorts of relevant criminal activities which are the subject matter of the Authority's investigations to be confined to the Commonwealth jurisdiction. Invariably there is territorial overlap and overlap between the various criminal offences created by Commonwealth and State laws. If there is to be a successful concerted attack on organised criminal activity throughout Australia, clearly the National Crime Authority, exercising its coercive powers, needs to have the ability to move within the Commonwealth and relevant State jurisdictions. Indeed, it was this that led to the recommendation by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs-and this was the basis for this particular provision within the legislation-to this effect: Recognising the force of the constitutional and practical constraints which favour the involvement of the States with the Federal Government in combating relevant criminal activity, the Committee recommends the continuation of an Inter-Governmental Committee. Senator Robert Hill and Senator Austin Lewis sat on that Senate Standing Committee and I think realised the worth and political sense in having such an intergovernmental committee to ensure that the National Crime Authority could operate successfully in all jurisdictions. Senator Peter Baume —Who was the Chairman? Senator TATE —I believe the Chairman was Senator Michael Tate, in a previous incarnation. As to whether the veto power, so-called, has been abused or misused, the fact is that the National Crime Authority has sought some seven references. Seven references have been granted and a new reference is to be considered at the Hobart meeting of the intergovernmental committee in late November. That is a useful discipline on the National Crime Authority, but, more importantly and as I have said, in our democracy it is very important that, as politicians and as Ministers, we take political responsibility for the exercise of these extraordinary powers throughout the community. Finally, the National Crime Authority has performed sufficiently well-there is no question of that-in the short period of its existence to have led the Prime Minister, during the election campaign, to state clearly that the sunset clause of the legislation should be repealed. Instructions are going to Parliamentary Counsel to ensure that that legislation is brought in during the autumn session. In the meantime, the fact is that morale at the National Crime Authority is extremely high. In searching for a replacement for Mr Max Bingham, QC, we are having good candidates come forward because they understand the situation, namely, that the National Crime Authority will continue. Its precise form and scope of powers will still have to be subject to the report of the joint parliamentary committee, which has a pre-eminent role in making its assessment. I believe that the National Crime Authority is performing extremely well, and the intergovernmental committee is performing its function as it ought to in a democracy. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is addressed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate and relates to the Menzies inquiry and to the ongoing work of Mr Greenwood, QC, into the possible presence of former nazi war criminals in Australia. I remind the Minister of the support given by senators in encouraging the Government along the course that it has taken so far in this matter. Can the Minister assure the Senate that, in the event that legislation is needed to advance the work of Mr Greenwood in the prosecution of this matter, such legislation would not create any new criminal liability with retrospective application, and that Australia, in any desire it might have to call people to account for past crimes, will not do so by now breaching one of the most desirable and fundamental features of Australia's system of criminal justice? Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand that the legislation referred to by Senator Peter Baume is in fact being introduced into Parliament, if not today, tomorrow. I am sure that the particular matter to which he refers has been thoroughly taken into account in the drafting of that legislation, but I will certainly take the question on notice and ensure that he gets a proper answer, if not before the end of today, certainly tomorrow. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to a previous question that I asked Senator Tate in which I drew attention to the allegations of unpaid tax involving a former Queensland police licensing officer, Mr Jack Herbert. In relation to this matter, it has been reported in the Press: The Taxation Department also wants to interview Mr Herbert about $800,000 in alleged unpaid taxes. A further report in the Courier-Mail dated 29 September 1987 states that Mr Herbert received $120,000 a year in bribes from brothel operators. First, has an injunction been taken out against Mr Herbert on behalf of the Australian Taxation Office and, secondly, what other legal action has been taken by the Taxation Office against Mr Jack Herbert to resolve this matter? Senator WALSH —I have not confirmed this with the Treasurer or the Treasurer's office, but it has been reported-I think more than once; certainly in the Australian of 25 September-that the Australian Taxation Office has secured an injunction in the Brisbane Supreme Court to freeze Mr Herbert's assets, and tax officers estimate that he owes almost $830,000 in tax on undeclared income. It was also reported in the Canberra Times of 28 September that Mr Herbert is certain to be subpoenaed to appear before an inquiry, and the Taxation Office also wants to interview him about $800,000 in alleged unpaid taxes. The Sydney Morning Herald of 1 October reports: An injunction issued out of the supreme court against Herbert on behalf of the Taxation Office freezes $1.2m worth of real estate-- Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. The Minister has been asked a series of perfectly proper questions seeking information on matters which are clearly within the province of the Government. I question whether it is in order for a Minister to say that he has no information from the Treasurer, within whose jurisdiction these matters lie, and then proceed just to read from a series of newspaper accounts. It seems to me that the objective of having Ministers answer questions in this place is to get an authoritative answer. The Minister for Finance frequently tells the Senate that we cannot rely on newspapers, although he has just quoted several. It seems to me to be a gross abuse of Question Time for a Minister simply to use a question such as this to read newspaper extracts. I seek your ruling, Mr President, as to whether that is a proper exercise of the responsibilities which the Minister for Finance has in this place. It seems to me that a proper exercise would require him to say that he would go to the Treasurer and see whether the reports that he has apparently been gleaning from newspapers have any substance so that an authoritative answer can be given to this place. We can all read the newspapers to which the Minister has referred, if that is how we want to get our information. The PRESIDENT —I have said many times in this place that I have no powers to direct a Minister as to how he will answer a question. I listened to the question and I was listening to the Minister's reply and I was under the impression that Senator Walsh was using a number of examples before making a central point in reply to Senator Jones's question. I will listen to the Minister's reply and, if that is not the case, I will rule his answer out of order. Senator WALSH —I had almost finished the quotation, which concludes: $1.2m worth of real estate and $200,000 in bank accounts held by him in Queensland. Of course, that refers to Mr Herbert. I can understand Senator Chaney's sensitivity in not wanting to have affairs in Queensland discussed very much, but I suspect that he will be a lot more sensitive about it before it is all finished. Finally, I will seek confirmation from the Treasurer as to whether those newspaper reports are correct. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President, I have no sensitivity at all about the Minister dealing with any matter which is properly within his jurisdiction. His total incapacity to answer questions in this place relating to Labor governments is now notorious. I resent, and ask for the withdrawal of, any suggestion that the Opposition is or I am seeking to prevent the Minister from giving any proper information to this place. The PRESIDENT —I do not think that the use of the word `insensitive' is really covered under Standing Orders as a remark that should be withdrawn. There is no point of order. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I draw the Minister's attention to an item in the Brisbane Sunday Sun stating that Mr Kelty's salary from the Australian Council of Trade Unions is now in the order of $55,000 a year plus a company car which is not subject to fringe benefits tax. Is it a fact that trade unions are specifically exempt from the Government's fringe benefits tax? Senator WALSH —I did see that report, although not in the Sunday Sun, but in some sister, or cousin or brother publication, however one would refer to it. I meant to check it out. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such exemption. Everyone around me seems to believe that that is the case as well. However, in order to please Senator Chaney, I shall have it formally checked out with the Australian Taxation Office. Senator REYNOLDS —I refer to Senator Knowles's question without notice on 26 October in which she queried the loss to local government caused by the substitution of quarterly payments for one annual payment of untied Commonwealth financial assistance to local government. I undertook to provide further detail. In May, when the change to quarterly payments was announced, the Treasurer estimated that the change would save the Commonwealth around $27m in 1987-88. No new estimate of the saving involved has been made since then. At the time it was acknowledged that there would be a loss of benefit to local government principally as a result of interest revenue forgone. It was accepted, however, that this loss of benefit would be somewhat less than the $27m being saved by the Commonwealth. There is no point in `averaging' the loss of benefit to councils given the very great differences in individual grants and given the different investment practices in different councils. In considering this matter two additional factors need to be taken into account. They are: firstly, the loss of benefit is small in relation to the $1.1 billion of Commonwealth money being provided to local government this year; and, secondly, the new payment arrangements place local government in a no less favourable position than the States in respect of receipt of untied general purpose assistance grants. Senator RICHARDSON —On 23 October, Senator Parer asked me a question concerning a letter which appeared in the 18 September edition of Australian Dr Weekly. Senator Parer asked whether there was any truth in the allegation made in the letter that a Department of Social Security officer advised a woman to insist that her doctor sign a certificate, against his better judgment, stating that she was permanently unemployable because of ill health. Senator Parer asked whether this was an isolated case and whether, in order to disguise unemployment figures, Social Security officers have been instructed to encourage long term unemployed people to apply for other benefits such as sickness benefit, invalid pension and special benefits. Inquiries have been made into the allegations the letter makes. The allegations are wrong. The officer of the Department involved in the case followed proper procedure in informing the woman, who had told the Department that she was too ill to work, that if she wished to claim sickness benefit she would have to have a doctor's certification that she was unfit for work. If a person is temporarily unfit for work on medical grounds the proper benefit to be paid is sickness benefit-a short term benefit. There are regular reviews of those who have been receiving sickness benefit for more than a few weeks to ensure that they still qualify for the benefit and to determine, if they are still in need of social security assistance, whether a pension such as invalid pension or other benefit such as unemployment benefit, should be paid instead. There are no departmental instructions to staff to encourage long term unemployed people to apply for other benefits in order to reduce unemployment benefit numbers. In fact the statistics show clearly that no such thing is occurring. In the last year unemployment benefit numbers have declined by 60,230 while the number receiving sickness benefit has increased by only 9,850. The reduction in unemployment benefit numbers has occurred through the Government's economic policies which have increased employment, and through improved social security administration. Senator RYAN —During Question Time, Senator Vanstone sought clarification of the Government's decision-making in relation to the setting up of the national bioethics committee as recommended by the Senate committee inquiring into that subject. She sought clarification particularly in relation to a Press release put out by me on 29 July. Having had the opportunity to examine that Press release, I could see that further clarification was necessary. I would like Senator Vanstone to understand that the announcement in my statement of 29 July referred to the fact that the Ministers responsible for health had agreed to set up a committee on bioethics, and that is the case. The Commonwealth is now moving to consider possible nominees to that committee. We are considering such nominees in terms of wide community representation as well as of obtaining the services of distinguished individuals. Discussions are proceeding on that point. Informal terms of reference for the committee have been circulated as a draft only, and I am holding discussions with the States and with relevant groups about their thinking on the committee's mandate and priorities. So, although a decision to proceed with the committee has been made, the committee itself has not been established. We are in the process of considering how to do that, as I said today. I conclude by saying that the business of establishing a constructive Commonwealth role in this very complex matter is not easy and I would welcome any constructive suggestions which the Opposition might have on that point. Bioethics Bioethics Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Senator Harradine —No. The PRESIDENT —Is leave being refused? Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.07) —I wish to say something on this subject, Mr President, since I did not have a question on the matter, and I am in order in doing so. The PRESIDENT —Leave is refused. Senator HARRADINE —I speak to the motion because I want to follow up the questions that have been legitimately asked by Senator Vanstone about this matter. What Senator Ryan told the Senate yesterday was incorrect in respect of a question that was addressed by Senator Vanstone to Senator Ryan. In Senator Ryan's comments yesterday she indicated that attempts were being made to establish a national bioethics committee to deal with questions of major public policy, but she clearly stated that the Commonwealth would not be anticipating legislation in this field. In other words, the committee would be established without the authority of the Parliament and be unanswerable to it. Senator Ryan —We have not gone that far down the track. Senator HARRADINE —That is what Senator Ryan said here yesterday, and I quote her words: We are now at the stage of looking at the way in which the Commonwealth can usefully develop a position in the field of bioethics, probably by way of accepting the Senate Committee's recommendation to have an expert advisory body to which medical matters that raise complex ethical issues could be referred. Again it is not an area where the Commonwealth would be anticipating legislation . . . I ask the Minister how she can categorise those attempts as, in her words, `accepting the Senate Committee's recommendation'. Those recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Human Embryo Experimentation specifically provided that such a national bioethics body should be established by statute, should report to the Parliament, and should be bound by a recommended statutory principle which would ban destructive non-therapeutic experimentation on human embryos. They were the Committee's recommendations, and Senator Ryan gets up in the Senate and tries to palaver the Senate and to suggest that in some way what she is proposing is not what she is proposing. Of course, she is a Johnny-come-lately in the area. All this has been proposed by the pro-experimentation scientists and by the Medical Research Ethics Committee establishment. Senator Ryan shakes her head. If she wants a long debate on this, I have all of this chapter and verse. In fact, the latest event occurred last night. She was talking about getting people on this body, and the latest episode occurred last night in a program called Tuesday Dispatch on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Professor Max Charlesworth, in the latest of a number of comments on this subject, said that there should be no legislation in this area and that he preferred Crowley and Zakharov to Tate. Senator Ryan —He is entitled to his opinion. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, but it is all cut and dried and the Minister knows that. Senator Ryan knows that Max Charlesworth is the pea of the medical research establishment and she also knows that he is the pea of those pro-experimentation scientists for this particular position. It is no good her saying that she is preparing a response to the Senate Select Committee. This Committee report was presented to this chamber in October last year. It is a downright disgrace that the Government has not responded, as it ought to, to this Committee, which spent a great deal of time on the question. Indeed, I was one who did not entirely agree with the majority report. Nevertheless, I know that that report has received world-wide recognition as being unique in this particular field because it is the only national committee established by Parliament which has called public evidence, to which some 270 submissions were made and to which were brought witnesses-scientists and others-who were then exposed to public questions by persons on that Committee who were the elected representatives of the people. The Government has virtually ignored what that Committee has said in this major question of public policy-that is, whether there are to be destructive experiments on human embryos. I emphasise that the Committee came down against destructive, non-therapeutic experimentation. Surely that is a major question of public policy which should not be left to an elite group appointed by the Government without the authority of the Parliament and without having to report to Parliament. Surely that is a major question of public policy which should not be kept out of the purview of this Parliament. A reason for the Committee suggesting that there should be a national bioethics body, to which protocols would be presented by scientists wishing to undertake experimentation, was to enable complex protocols to be considered but the national bioethics body would be bound by the statutory principle recommended by the Committee-namely that there should be a legislative ban on non-therapeutic, destructive experimentation on early human beings. That is an issue of great public importance. I emphasise that, when I first raised this issue in 1965, the then Professor of Law in Sydney, Professor Julius Stone-a well-known international academic jurist-wrote to me congratulating me on raising this issue which, he said, would pose grave problems for the whole of mankind. In fact, he referred me to an article that he wrote which indicated that these were problems similar to that of the application of nuclear technology to the manufacture of nuclear weapons, which would pose problems for the whole of mankind. It is the new Manhattan project. The Minister is doing what governments did in those days-leaving the matter to the elite groups, to be determined away from the view and the authority of the elected representatives of the people. That is an absolute disgrace. This is not the only matter that is coming down the track. There is also the whole area of the establishment of registers of genetic disorders. In the Estimates committee hearings, I asked a question about the committee that has been established to look into the establishment of registers of genetic disorders. The officers could not answer me because they did not know about it, but it had been recommended and suggested by the Medical Research Ethics Committee establishment. These are the people who are running the Minister, who does not know what is going on. That is the trouble, but it will all come down on her head. The last time these registers of genetic disorders were established was in 1934 in the Third Reich. We have a great many problems facing us and I am glad that Senator Vanstone has raised these issues for the public to hear. I am only too sorry that Senator Ryan has not answered Senator Vanstone in the way that she should have. More particularly, in her answer, probably unbeknown to her-and I respect Senator Ryan-she has misled the Senate in saying certain things which are just not correct. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.16) —I understand that the Minister is not proposing to respond at this stage and for that reason I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 28 October, from Senator Newman: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: `The need to recognise that a crisis of confidence has arisen in Australia's defence forces as a direct consequence of the policies of the Labor Government and a lack of both leadership and genuine concern about service pay and conditions by the Ministers for Defence and Defence Science and Personnel.' Yours sincerely, JOCELYN NEWMAN Senator for the State of Tasmania Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(3.17) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to recognise that a crisis of confidence has arisen in Australia's defence forces as a direct consequence of the policies of the Labor Government and a lack of both leadership and genuine concern about service pay and conditions by the Ministers for Defence and Defence Science and Personnel. This is very much a matter of urgency for Australia. The situation in our defence forces and the crisis in confidence is something with which all Australians should be concerned. The Government clearly is not. When I look at the Government benches I see what little interest there is in this subject by the people who rule this land. Let them know that dissatisfaction in the Services has reached boiling point. It is leading to a severe decline in morale and in our defence capability. These are desperately serious matters. Even the very well oiled media machine of the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, has been unable to keep a lid on this boiling pot any longer. When one looks at the lack of leadership and protection that the Government gives to the servicemen and when one compares it with the leadership, co-operation and protection that it gives to its friends in the Australian Council of Trade Unions, one sees that there is a world of difference between the treatment of two very important areas of our community. One dines at the Government's table, the other catches the crumbs if it is able. This dissatisfaction is not just affecting servicemen and their families; it is affecting all of us because of the enormous cost of replacing those who leave the Services and because it is also having the effect of leaving our country inadequately defended. The situation is so serious that the Opposition cannot sit by while the Government tells the nation that all is well, while it conceals and fudges the figures which show just how bad the situation is. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) is no longer releasing the monthly figures for separation rates. We have had quite an argument as to whether the September figures as published in the Australian and in Jane's Defence Weekly-two quite independent publications-are correct or whether they are as the Minister tells us. We suspect that a new accounting method-a creative accounting method-has entered the Department of Defence. I hope not, but maybe this is so-at the Government's urging. We on this side of the chamber will not rest until the problem is addressed and until these servicemen get a better deal. I have been travelling around the country over the last few months talking to service men and women and their families. This is the job that the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel should have been doing. But have they been doing it? Not on your live. They are hiding away in coward's castle here. They either do not know, do not want to know or do not care what is happening. But we care. We know that the rate at which people are leaving the forces is at an all-time high. The number of people leaving the forces went from 6,700 in 1983-84 to 9,000 in 1986-87, and we expect it to be between 10,000 and 11,000 this year. It is absolutely disgraceful. The rate of officer resignations has gone from 5.4 per cent to 12 per cent over the same period. These figures do not lie. The Government should acknowledge them. More and more service personnel are thinking about, and openly discussing, leaving the Services. This is starting to have an effect on operational tasks. It means that Australia is increasingly having difficulty in keeping its planes in the air, its ships at sea and its soldiers in the field. Mrs Kelly refuses to face the seriousness of this problem. She spends a considerable amount of time making creative and stupid comments about the subject. She has been telling the nation that it is good for morale. I can imagine only that she means that the few defence personnel who are left will get more rapid promotion. How else can it possibly be good for morale to see people leaving the forces in droves? She tells us that it is usual for pilots to leave. Of course it is, but not in the numbers we are suffering today. She tells us that it has something to do with women in the forces, that it has something to do with the Vietnam hump. She tells us that morale is something that she is working on. In case anybody should think that I am being creative I would like to quote some of Mrs Kelly's interviews with the media. On 10 August she told Pru Goward on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Morning Show: . . . frankly, I think the whole issue is being incredibly exaggerated. There's no doubt there is an increase in our separation rates over previous years, but it isn't very dramatic. An article which appeared in the Canberra Times the next day, 11 August, reports Mrs Kelly as saying that she `does not believe that there is a major problem with separation rates in the Services overall, but there are problems in some areas'. A week later she is reported in the Australian as saying that a high turnover was `not necessarily a bad thing unless it was concentrated in a few areas'. I think Mrs Kelly does not know what she is talking about. Whether she does know or she does not, when will she do something? She had to be prodded into going to see the wives in Townsville. Honourable senators may recall that in this chamber I asked why she was not going to see the wives. She was going to see the men. Although she had been asked to see the Royal Australian Air Force and Australian Army wives, she was not going. Finally she went, but to do so she cancelled a visit to the wives in Brisbane. She has not seen them yet. When is she going to see the wives in Holsworthy? Next month. These are major defence establishments. Her job is to implement the recommendations of the Hamilton Review of the Effect of Service Life on Spouses to upgrade the conditions of service for service personnel. She is not getting around the country; she is not talking to the people who are suffering. The Hamilton report came out 18 months ago. It made 15 major recommendations and so far only one has been partially implemented. The Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Service has just been established but it is still not operating. From this Government we get a lot of talk but we get very little action. The Government has known for a long time that it had a problem, but it would not admit it. It has made it worse with its own stupid actions. I draw the Senate's attention to the cut to the Defence Force retirement and death benefits pension base last year. This scheme is contributory, with servicemen having to contribute 5.5 per cent of their income to the scheme. When we were debating the matter in September last year, Senator Walsh said: . . . the measure does not affect conditions in the Australian Defence Force because, by definition, it affects only people who have retired from the Defence Forces. If ever there is an example of the Government refusing to face the facts of what it is doing, those words of Senator Walsh should say it all. The Government will not face up to the fact that these cuts affect the confidence and morale of defence personnel. The Government is breaking the deals on the basis of which personnel enlisted in the first place. There have been inexcusable delays in setting up the Defence Housing Authority. The Government will find the problem far worse than it has admitted when the Authority finally gets under way. There is no service spouse representation on the Defence Housing Authority, just a token female with `experience in social planning' on the interim board. The Government could appoint a spouse to the Authority under clause 26 but it has not. I urge it to do so. The Government is treating defence personnel on the same basis as it treats public servants who sleep in warm, dry beds every night of their lives. We know about the unrealistic service allowances. Personnel, in their latest increase, got about an extra $1 an hour in overtime, which is just nonsense. They are working up to 55 hours a week. The Department was arguing against the interests of its own personnel. There are unreal restrictions on the education allowance to help personnel finance their children's education. Only 87 families out of the 70,000 defence personnel receive an education allowance. Minister Kelly set up Helen Mayer as a consultant at a great cost to the nation to find out once again what the problems are. The Government should be finding the solutions. Far too many studies have been done already. Believe it or not, we discovered in an Estimates committee hearing the other night that the Department's defence housing repairs and maintenance vote has been cut. Can honourable senators imagine what that will do to the morale of the forces, whose members are already, by the Department's own admission, living in sub-standard accommodation. As an economy measure, the thing the Government cuts is repairs and maintenance to defence families' housing. That must be just about the end for some families who cannot get repairs done to their sub-standard houses. The standard of housing, we know, is one of the major reasons why people leave the forces. The change to the defence service homes loans scheme that was announced in the Budget is the last straw for our service men and women. There was no consultation. They are furious. I remind the Senate that at the very time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was taking the salute at the welcome home parade for the Vietnam veterans-20 years too late-he was ripping off home loans for today's servicemen. Clearly, the leopard does not change his spots. Families from far north Queensland to southern Tasmania have spoken to me. They have cried out for help. For the first time they are holding public meetings, they are sending letters, they are signing petitions and they are getting publicity in the newspapers. This is unknown for service people. They are quiet, conservative people devoted to serving the government of the day. By `conservative' I do not mean conservative in politics, but that their way of life traditionally is out of the public eye. Their dissatisfaction has been evidenced by the unprecedented step of holding public meetings. It is evidenced by the motion that was passed at the Holsworthy public meeting the other night: This meeting condemns the Government for its failure to consult with the services over the defence services home loan scheme and calls on the Government to preserve all existing benefits available under the scheme. It is absolutely remarkable for a public meeting of service men and women and their families to condemn the government they serve. It may be a common or garden-type action outside the defence forces but it is unheard of inside. The dissatisfaction of service personnel is also evidenced by documents which are starting to fall off the backs of Land Rovers and wash off the backs of submarines. This may happen in other departments, but it has not been the way of the Department of Defence. Dissatisfaction is evidenced by claims that have been made to me that answers to the Estimates committee have been cooked by the Department, a most serious allegation and one that I understand can be proved. It is evidenced by a very courageous general, the commander of the First Division, who spoke out recently in the Australian about the effects of this problem on our defence capability. It is evidenced by the anger, unhappiness and confusion which was so eloquently expressed at the Holsworthy meeting. Five hundred Army, Royal Australian Navy and Air Force personnel and their spouses packed a public hall on a wet night to complain about what the Government is doing to their conditions of service. But there were no Ministers there to listen to them. Three invitations were sent to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) but not one was acknowledged, let alone answered. He is well known, of course, for his preference for the equipment side of his portfolio. Mrs Kelly found it more convenient to attend a private engagement in Sydney the same night. I can assume only that her earlier meeting with the wives in Townsville has taken away her taste for such meetings. Sadly, the families who went to that meeting left more fearful than when they arrived. It is incredible to recount, but Mrs Kelly's public service representative told that meeting that the Government could do what it liked to conditions and pay; it could put them up or put them down. I suppose it will come as no surprise to honourable senators that he, the messenger whom the Minister sent to her defence personnel, was howled down. Those families have a right to be outraged. They have been treated as second-class citizens. They are in a quite different position from other Australians. They have no right to organise their labour. They cannot fight back when conditions are taken away from them. They see their conditions and their treatment by the Government as a breach of their contract of employment. The soldiers, sailors and airmen that night said, `What gives the Government the right to change the rules? Why should servicemen not break their contracts and get out now?'. One private soldier said that the wives are having to take all this action because the soldiers cannot speak up. They have to go through proper channels. But their officers cannot help them; their officers do not know the answers. The officers have a lack of trust and confidence in the Government. The soldiers end up having a lack of confidence and trust in their officers. What are we doing to our defence forces? This Government must stand condemned. I want to quote very briefly from a letter which was sent to the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, on 14 October by the Townsville Area Consultative Group of Service Spouses. I quote a couple of paragraphs: It is clear that the recent Budget proposal to introduce a $10,000 grant to replace the DSHL- that is, the defence service home loan- was either ill conceived or has been deliberately introduced without regard for the human dimension of the problem. There are many significant cases where both serving members and retired veterans are grossly disadvantaged by the loss of a previously accepted condition of service. Apart from the loss of trust this has engendered, there are numerous cases of real hardship and anguish caused by the precipitate way in which the issue has been presented. A further paragraph states: As representatives of the TACGSS we wish to inform the Minister that our people feel insulted and indeed betrayed by the proposed withdrawal of the DSHL. A further paragraph states: You should be aware that there is a ground swell of concern in our community which is taking a form of mistrust of the Government's motives in all areas of service conditions. What a damning letter for the Minister for Defence to receive. These are the people who have taken pride in their service and who have felt that the job they had to do was a vital one and was honoured as such by their fellow Australians and by their governments. They feel they are being cheated now on their defence service home loans. I do not have time to go into that in detail but, when honourable senators know that 56 per cent of the applications for defence service loans in fact come from existing servicemen, they will realise just how the changes to this scheme will affect them dramatically. The Government is now making noises that it is changing its proposals that were in the Budget, but there is still unsatisfactory consultation with the servicemen because, although the Returned Services League, public servants and one businessman will be represented, this working group will not have a representative of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia, it will not have a representative of the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses and it will not have a representative of servicemen's welfare organisations. Although we have real difficulties due to separations of the defence forces, we have even more difficulties because of the ceiling which this Government has set on them. The terminal strength for the Australian Army will be under 32,000. That will be extremely tight and is likely to affect the field force capability. That was acknowledged by the Department in Estimates Committee E hearings. The lesson already being learned on Diamond Dollar, the exercise in Queensland, is that the job of coping with a low level threat in that area is very labour intensive. It is a big area. There are bridges and microwave dishes to be dealt with. With the limited manpower, men get tired from being on duty around the clock, and they need reinforcements. But the resupply of men and equipment is very difficult because of the lack of amphibious lift capacity, and that too partly depends on manpower. The Government has been warned over and over again. Rear-Admiral Ralph, Deputy Chief of Naval Staff, said that three landing craft heavies had had to be laid up because of manpower priorities and they may not have the ability to reintroduce one into service because of a shortage of manpower. Major-General Fitzgerald, the Deputy Chief of the General Staff, told the Estimates Committee that the Army was taking one medium battery off the order of battle and was moving one troop of air defence weapons battery and one squadron of the armoured regiment to the Reserve. We have heard a lot about pilots. We have lost 75 in the last three months. Air Vice- Marshal Bradford, the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, said at the Estimates Committee hearings that there are not enough qualified flying instructors and the ability to make up the shortfall is limited. I could go on and on. There is a crisis of confidence throughout the Defence Force between the servicemen and their officers and between the officers and the Government. This has led to a critical situation. Our fathers' generation was appalled by the suggestion that we might be able to defend Australia only south of the Brisbane line. God forbid that this becomes a reality under this Government. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(3.36) —Senator Newman has such a penchant for grandstanding that she could have built the Melbourne Cricket Ground in a day. I have noticed a rather curious fact emerging from the Opposition. Opposition female members of parliament seem to keep a bit of extra vitriol up their sleeve when attacking female Labor Ministers. It has become most noticeable in this chamber. I am curious about it, but I cannot explain it. One of the points raised by Senator Newman first off was that Mrs Kelly was not getting around to enough defence establishments. I point out that we have been in fairly constant session here in Parliament. The moment Ministers disappear off on duty, Senator Chaney or someone else jumps up and makes the point that they are unavailable at Question Time and that their real duty is to be here in the chamber. Mrs Kelly has made a major effort to get to as many defence establishments as is possible, given the constraints on meeting times in this chamber. Of course, Senator Newman raised the question of cuts in superannuation and was obviously arguing that those on Australian Defence Force (ADF) retirement pensions should be exempted, in isolation from the rest of the community. The reality is that those cuts last year were brought about by this Government wanting to share the sacrifice amongst all sections of the community. We had a high inflation rate in this country, induced primarily by the collapse in our terms in trade, by an external factor, and so all pensioners and all groups were asked to make a one-off sacrifice. Many people in the defence area have written to members of parliament saying that they were happy to be included in that whole group in the community, although obviously not all were happy. I want to make one or two additional points. Firstly, this Government has appointed a Minister responsible for defence personnel for the first time. Secondly, what did the Liberal Party of Australia do? How important does it regard defence? The shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), has now left the gallery, but he is not even placed in the shadow Cabinet. That is how irrelevant the Opposition regards defence. It will not even include the shadow Defence Minister in the shadow Cabinet. Never before has a government been more committed to Australia's defence and, more importantly, to improving the well-being and conditions of service for Australian Defence Force personnel and their families. In March 1987 the Defence Minister, Kim Beazley, tabled the Government's White Paper on defence. The paper outlines this Government's strategy for defence self-reliance within a framework of our alliances and regional associations. It set out the direction for the Australian Defence Force within realistic budget parameters. The paper was very well received by the Australian Defence Force, the Returned Services League and generally throughout the community-and, I might add, by the Opposition. The Canberra Times, in its editorial of 2 April 1987, said: It is a good, sensible White Paper. It pays proper regard to financial constraints, and the nation can have confidence in it. The Opposition has no credibility in the defence debate. For example, Mr Sinclair calls for more spending on defence. At the same time, Mr Howard wants more tax cuts. The reality is that, under the tories, cuts in defence expenditure will be inevitable. This would affect the whole gamut of defence activity-new equipment, housing and pay. The record of the coalition in government in the defence area is abysmal. The answer to that is very simple. First of all, it instituted a wage freeze on the defence forces. We saw a general erosion of conditions in the Defence Force in its time in government and we saw a general deterioration in housing standards. We must ask ourselves: Were the Opposition ever to regain government, would it be able to agree on what it would cut in the future? I would be interested to know what items it would scrap to redeploy defence expenditure. Would it cut out the six new submarines, the 39 Black Hawk helicopters; the eight light patrol frigates, the 6,000 radios for the Army, the 67,000 new Steyr rifles, the 3,000 trucks for the Army, or the 75 FA18 aircraft for the Air Force? Why does the Opposition not come clean and tell us exactly where its expenditure cuts in defence would be and what its policies would be? Or is it saying, `We can slosh another $5, $6 or $8 billion into defence expenditure'? If members of the Opposition come into this chamber and say that they had better detail all their other policy cuts because they are on record as saying that they want balanced budgets. They want tax cuts as well. They are trying to have their cake and eat it. The Opposition's record on defence strategy is highlighted by a number of factors. The first is a mesmorisation about aircraft carriers, which has been legendary in this chamber over the last few years. Opposition members have set their sights on aircraft carriers as a be-all and an end-all. Secondly, whenever they can, they send expeditionary forces to far off places. They have a total lack of understanding about Australia's defence requirements. They invent fanciful threats which absolutely skewers Australia's defence policy. Look at the gaps they left in Australia's defence policy: no minesweeping capability, inadequate mobility for the Army, a lack of infrastructure in the north, a one-ocean Navy, no joint operational command system and no air to air refuelling. That is the legacy that the Opposition left the Government in this area. Time after time it left massive gaps in the defence area. Those opposite are incorrect in asserting that there has been a reduction in the operational capabilities of the Australian defence forces. For the first time in the nation's history, this Government has put in place a comprehensive buildup in Australia's Defence Force tailored to our unique strategic circumstances. This is something that the Opposition has failed to do through its decades of neglect of developing a Defence Force capable of defending Australia. This Government, in having a realistic regard, firstly, to our unique strategic circumstances, and, secondly, to the economic realities, seeks to achieve a balance between investment in new capabilities, ADF operations which emphasise credible contingencies, and redressing the Opposition's neglect of such important matters as Service housing and single living accommodation. Members opposite did not provide this country with a viable Defence Force capable of defending the nation, its sovereignty and its vital interests. Let me turn to the area which Senator Newman concentrated on most-that is, conditions of service. This Government is concerned to ensure that Australian defence personnel and their families receive proper and acceptable conditions of service. This Government has acted properly in regard to gradually improving conditions for the Australian Defence Force in the areas of pay and housing. This Government was not responsible for the wage freeze; those opposite introduced the wage freeze and of course, they continue to oppose all extra pay grants anywhere in the economy. Can honourable senators remember when Liberal senators last supported a pay rise, assuming, of course, that doctors' salaries are not regarded as a pay rise? Of course, they do not. They will be back to their old tricks of wage freezes, once again badly affecting the defence forces. Our record on pay and allowances is a proven one. We created an independent pay tribunal to which defence personnel have direct access. Defence personnel have received all national wage increases. Specialist allowances for submarines, general service and personnel who serve in the field have recently been increased. The submarine service allowance led to an increase of over 100 per cent, the general service allowance was increased by 22 per cent, and the field allowance was increased from $4.01 per day to $12 per day. The Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal is shortly to examine a request to increase flying allowances. The Government has taken steps to protect the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme. The 2 per cent discount applied in 1986 was the same as for general wage earners. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has indicated that the Government will legislate to restore that minor discount when economic circumstances permit. I move now to the question of housing. This Government has legislated to create a Defence Housing Authority. We debated this in this chamber some weeks ago. Seventy-five million dollars has been allocated to defence housing in this Budget. A further $60m is being allocated to single person accommodation and $750m will be spent on new and improved housing over the next decade. The Opposition is responsible, in the main, for the sorry state of defence housing. This Government is doing much to redress that neglect. On housing rents, defence personnel can be assured that the Government will continue to be fair and reasonable. The majority of defence personnel pay less than $50 a week for housing. Under the tories opposite those rents would increase to over $100 a week, as foreshadowed by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who wants to privatise all housing. Before the last election the honourable member for O'Connor went around this country saying, `We will privatise housing but we will not put any limits on the rents'. If honourable senators opposite ever got back into power, people's rents would move from $50 to $100 overnight and that cannot be denied. Opposition senators know that the honourable member for O'Connor went round the country. I am sure that it shocked and disappointed them because it lost them a lot of votes at the last election. As foreshadowed in the Budget, consultations are continuing to improve the defence home loans scheme. The Government is examining options for greater flexibility in the new arrangements and a decision on them can be expected shortly. As a result of the report of the Hamilton Review of the Effects of Service Life on Spouses, to which Senator Newman has alluded, a national consultative group of spouses has been formed. It provides a forum for defence spouses to present conditions of service concerns to the Chief of the Defence Force. Senator Newman —And you won't consult them on it. Senator ROBERT RAY —What did the previous Liberal Government do about this? Absolutely nothing. The problem with honourable senators opposite is that they talk big about defence but then they put no money in whatsoever. They talk patriotically about defending the defence forces and about the people in those defence forces, but when it comes to the bottom line of helping them out, honourable senators opposite are in the land of the missing. They should remember that since 1939 they have had 30 years in government to redress a lot of the problems of the defence forces, but all they have ever done is try to exploit defence for political points. Honourable senators opposite can go back through history, if they like, to the various times under Menzies and other Prime Ministers when foreign policy in defence matters was dictated not by the strategic needs of Australia but by the strategic needs of the Liberal Party of Australia. It got all sorts of McCarthyist campaigns going in which it could look more patriotic than anyone else. Now that kicking the communist can has gone down the drain, we have this bogus militarism from those opposite. Let me go to the question of separation rates for the Defence Force. The average rate for the last 10 years has been 11.1 per cent. In 1986-87 that rate of separation rose to 12.8 per cent. We are obviously concerned about the increase in the separation rate and we are making a variety of policy decisions to help turn that around. It is important to note that the separation rates have in fact reflected certain changes in our society that may be with us for the foreseeable future. Conditions of society do change-and that does affect overall separation rates-not the least of which is that we have been able to establish far many more employment opportunities in this country. Many hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created in the life of this Labor Government, which provide many other alternative forms of employment that were not available in those dark, dingy Fraser days when unemployment went through the roof, and many people may have joined the armed forces, not out of desire to serve in those forces, but because it was an available opportunity at the time. Senator Messner —Are you saying you are a training ground for Qantas pilots? Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Messner raises the question of pilots, and let us look at that. For over 20 years the average loss rate has been 47 per year. In 1985-86 that rose to 70, and to 107 in 1986-87, and so far this year the figure is 75. The average number of pilots graduating per year is 55 to 65. So obviously that, of all the separation rates in the armed forces, is the one that would give the Government most concern. Of course there are complex reasons why the Royal Australian Air Force has been so affected. First of all, there is no doubt that the influence of Qantas Airways Ltd and its recruiting policies has had an effect on accelerating the separation rate, because what we are seeing in this country under the enlightened Labor Government is a massive increase in tourism, the fastest growing industry in this country. As a result of that-we need only to have read the newspapers in the last few days-Qantas has had to put on an extra 137 flights to cover the peak period. But we are getting many more in-bound passengers and Australians returning here, and therefore pilots are at premium demand. As well as that, we have obviously had to take steps to remedy that situation. The responsible Minister has met with Mr Menadue from Qantas, and a whole range of measures have been adopted to minimise those recruiting policies. It is also true to say that pilots are very expensive to train and so to lift the training rate automatically and immediately is not easy. We are intending to increase the Service obligations from six to eight years. The Chief of the Air Staff is taking other steps. We are working towards increasing the compulsory retiring age of pilots of wing commander rank to 55 years. In conclusion in looking at the motion, as I said at the start, Senator Newman is of course grandstanding on this issue. It has been her speciality to go around and to try, if you like, to lock into these particular issues. I welcome the fact that Senator Newman specialises in this area. I think it is one of the functions of parliamentarians. The fact that she is so blinkered and does not consider or think about anything else is probably a tragedy for this chamber, because I am sure that we could listen with a lot of interest to her yapping away on a lot of other subjects. But the reality is that today she has totally failed to make out a case because she has a certain disease that is applicable to all of those opposite, and that is political amnesia. Opposition senators have suddenly fallen to earth since 1983 and have started to make comments on politics. They have just wiped their responsibility for the period 1975 to 1983. It is like a black hole. Everything disappears into it, nothing exists. That is what they are saying. They say: `We have no responsibility for it'. It is like trying to find a nazi in Germany after the Second World War. Everyone says: `No, it wasn't me, it was someone else'. That is what they used to say. It is very hard to find a Fraser supporter. Where are they? Every time I challenge them in the Senate to say who over there in fact supported Fraser, they all say: `No, no I was not really a Fraser man. I have learnt. I am not responsible for the events of 1975 to 1983'. Once again those opposite come into this chamber and criticise this Government, which has taken more constructive steps on defence and poured more money into defence than the proper strategic thinking in the area of defence and all they can do is whinge and whine, because they have lost their ace up the sleeve. Their chance to bleat about defence and accuse this Government and the Labor Party of not caring about defence has now gone. They can no longer get out into the electorate and try to take advantage of it. This urgency motion is a contemptible one and it deserves to be defeated. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(3.55) —The Australian Democrats in essence support the thrust of this urgency motion, but we do have some reservations about it. Obviously we must acknowledge that there is a crisis of confidence in Australia's defence forces. The evidence of that is overwhelming. This crisis is not recent. In fact, although it has climaxed in recent years, it has existed for several decades. It is the product of several governments. In all fairness we must acknowledge that it has a long history, if we are to understand it and if we are to react responsibly to it. In that respect the Opposition is not innocent. Reference was made earlier in this debate by Senator Newman to the fact that there have recently been reductions in the Defence Force retirement benefits allowances. We make the observation that the Australian Democrats were the only party in this chamber to vote against such reductions and at that time the Opposition voted with the Government. That happened as recently as the last 12 months. However, as I said, this has a long history. The decline of our defence forces goes back over several decades and several governments. I simply ask the Opposition to acknowledge its fair share of neglect. The present Government is in a bind. It has committed itself to reductions in expenditure and, therefore, when it comes to the area of defence, it addresses itself to the four main dimensions of defence policy; namely, the organisational dimension, the materiel dimension, the personnel dimension and the management dimension. The Government is presented with really only two opportunities to cut expenditure and they are in the areas of materiel and personnel. I believe that there is a bias in the Government's present defence posture and let us refer to it as the Beazley bias. Senator Richardson —It is a big one, too. Senator McLEAN —As Senator Richardson points out, it is a considerable bias and it is a bias in favour of materiel as opposed to personnel. We think that is most unfortunate and we are now beginning to see the implications of it. I would like to probe the implications of it, as the Opposition has done, quite effectively I believe, over the last 10 or 12 days. If there is a Beazley bias, there is also a Beazley neglect, as I have just pointed out and that Beazley neglect covers the whole area of personnel management in our Services. These biases are reflected in the Dibb report on the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, in the White Papers and in the other statements that have been made in the other place as well as from the Government benches in the Senate. The most recent suggestions of bias have come from the Defence Budget statement, which is an interesting document. On 9 October Senator Ray, representing the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) incorporated the document in Hansard. But as we were not treated to some of the rhetorical gems inherent in it therefore I would like to quote some of them, because it is quite extraordinary to think that the Government can incorporate a statement such as this as recently as 17 days ago, supposedly for us to accept it as valid 17 days ago, only to be confronted today by a well-founded urgency motion from Senator Newman, in support of the earlier urgency motion the subject of which, through a motion moved by Senator Messner, now finds itself before a Senate committee. Let us look at this dreamtime document which was the Government's defence budget statement. It says that this defence budget: is the first in which the delineation of Australia's Defence Force for the 1990's and into the 21st century can clearly be separated from the concepts and strategies of the 1950s and 1960s. In other words, we are told that this Government is taking a quantum leap forward into the next century in its defence planning. We will be citing evidence to the contrary. Such evidence has already been cited by Senator Newman. I quote further from the statement: This Government believes that our service men and women should know that they are members of an organisation that has clear cut direction- that would seem appropriate- that they are at the heart of the most fundamental of national responsibilities-the security of the nation; and that the Government takes its responsibilities for defence seriously. It goes on to cite efficiency improvements in the last two years, which it says are now providing-this is a beautiful phrase-`a dividend to defence'. We are told: The role of the reserve forces has been given higher status than at any time since World War II. The Minister also says: I am pleased to be able to report to the Parliament- get this one- that the ADF is responding very well. Australia's service men and women did not join up for an easy life. They joined for a challenging life and to serve their country. Senator Newman —Isn't that disgusting? Senator McLEAN —It is an extraordinary statement in the document incorporated in Hansard in this place 17 days ago, presumably for us to accept as credible. The responses to that document by the Australian Democrats and the Opposition were, I believe, reasonable and responsible. They rejected them outright. The Opposition, in its urgency motion of 20 October, cited the bias and sought to focus the Senate's attention upon it by referring it to an appropriate committee. I commend Senator Messner for the contents of that motion. It is interesting to cite the action of the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate at that time, Senator Gareth Evans. He acknowledged, albeit reluctantly, that this was an appropriate thing to do. In fact, he used this colourful phrase: Without any enthusiasm- that is understandable- but with a healthy sense of realism . . . He said that the Government has a healthy sense of realism about the state of defence in this country at the moment. Good heavens-the document that was incorporated 17 days ago is hardly one of inherent realism. Nevertheless, the present Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate has said that he has a healthy sense of realism about the situation. Let us hope that that realism comes through in his reaction to this urgency motion. Obviously, the Government will not support it, but hopefully it will react to it. That is what we are striving for-action and reaction. We accept the limitations of this chamber. We accept the limitations of the political play within it, but we do have a reasonable and responsible expectation of the Government-that it will react. These limitations of present defence posture were probed, I must say very diligently, by both Senator Newman and Senator MacGibbon in the Estimates committee hearing, and they have come to an appropriate focus in the Press recently. As honourable senators will know, in today's and yesterday's Press a number of items have cited the extraordinary and incredibly poor state of morale in this country's defence forces. Air Marshal Funnell in fact provided statements to David Humphries of the Age, citing a number of pertinent facts, which have already been stated by previous speakers in this debate and to which I will not return now. In essence, this is a question of morale within the defence forces. As I have said previously, morale is the second principle of war. It should, I would imagine, be the second principle of defence preparedness. It would be hard to imagine any organisation in our community where morale is in a more shattered, depleted state than that which is evident in our defence forces today. Morale is a complex phenomenon. As a former serving officer, I would like to cite some of its dimensions. I would like to paint, in fact, the psychological-cum-social-cum-domestic situation which has engendered this extraordinarily low level of morale and which renders it understandable. Let us look at three aspects of morale: those which affect service men and women specifically, such as pay and conditions, leadership, career structures, opportunities inside the Services, a sense of relevance of serving and the organisation in which one is serving having a sense of relevance to the community which it is serving; an appropriateness of training; and a comparison with opportunities outside the Services. In any of those senses service men and women have every reason to be demoralised. Those are the dimensions of the morale of the people within the Services. Let us look at the general social context and the way in which Australia has reacted to people in the Services in the post-Vietnam situation. I recall having been a serviceman and having served under a standing order from my unit which told me not to wear my uniform to work. Would honourable senators believe that for a certain time in this country serving members were under an order not to wear their uniform in the community which they were serving? Senator Messner —When was that? Senator McLEAN —That was from 1970 through to 1974, when they would have been harangued and ridiculed by virtue of the community attitude towards them in the post-Vietnam climate. We in this Party and we on this side of the chamber aspire to peace, as does everybody in this chamber, but in this atmosphere of growing peace aspirations, being in the Services can be seen as having moderately negative connotations. Let us look at the context of the service family. The report produced by Sue Hamilton, Supporting Service Families, has been cited by both the previous speakers. It enunciates quite clearly the social, domestic and psychological climate in which spouses of Australian service men and women live. Let us look at the dimensions which affect them. One is pay and the inability to attract supplementary income. If these people seek such income they are asked what their husband or wife does for a living. If they say that their spouse is a service man or woman they are told, `Sorry, we are not interested.', for the simple reason that their pattern of movement and their general assurance about remaining in that location and being able to hold down the job are called into question, even though this might be unrealistic. The dimension of housing is horrific. Education is another dimension. My own children went to 14 schools in 10 years while I was in the regular Army. The constant requirement to move one's family around and hence relocate one's children from one school to another only adds to this extraordinary dislocation. There is the turbulence associated with what was for many years the concept of posting everybody without question, just moving them willy nilly, every two years. Every resignation in the Services today necessitates a whole chain of movement, of children in schools and of families from home to home. This takes place simply to accommodate the incredible turbulence associated with the extraordinary resignation rate. In a question addressed to the Minister for Defence on 20 October or thereabouts, I cited the impact of travel. I do not see the solution to these problems as being easy. Clearly there has to be an urgent dramatic short term response on the part of our Government to arrest this extraordinary erosion of our Services, otherwise there will not be any. But in the long term the traditional models of organisation do not have the answer. We will have to be far more imaginative and far more dramatic. I and my colleagues in the Australian Democrats will be attempting in the next few months to put forward models which we believe address the long term problems of reversing morale in the defence forces. I sense that there is great urgency about the conditions of service. I commend the Opposition for bringing the urgency motion forward and, with some reservation, which I enunciated earlier, the Democrats support it. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.10) —There can be no doubt that the matter we are discussing this afternoon is a matter of urgency. We are talking about the crisis of confidence which has arisen in the defence forces in this country as a result of the Labor Government's lack of leadership and concern about the pay and conditions of the men and women who make up the defence services. It is a matter of urgency; it is a matter of morale. This afternoon the Government led its case through the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Robert Ray. He suggested that, in his opinion, we were suffering from political amnesia. Senator Short —Where is he now? Senator REID —He has left the chamber and that is a pity. However, I remind him that we do not suffer from political amnesia. I ask him to remember who ordered the leopard tanks that could not travel around this country because they could not cross our bridges. It was the Whitlam Government. We have not forgotten the xenophobia of the Government over the North West Cape. We know that we cannot trust Labor in matters of defence, because it has a split personality. Senator Ray also said that the Government was committed to Australia's defence, and that may be so. Some of the things he said in today's debate may even have been quite relevant to a different topic but they were not relevant to this one. We are concerned about the people who make up the defence forces-the men and women and their families. We know that unless they get satisfaction from their jobs everything else is meaningless. Commitment to defence is meaningless without a commitment to the people who are in our defence forces. As was said at the address to the graduating class of the United States Naval Academy in June 1942: Machines are as nothing without men. Men are as nothing without morale. The morale of our defence forces is what we are debating today. These days we hear about separation rates. What does the term `separation rates' mean? The word `separation' is used in many places. It is a highly imaginative euphemism for what is really happening-the decimation of the armed services as thousands upon thousands of skilled men and women are driven from their chosen careers by the failure of the Government to restore the morale of the members of the armed forces and their families. Once upon a time we talked about the resignation rate in the Services. A few would resign here and a few there but most service personnel served out their terms quite happily and then went on their way. For a while we heard about the wastage rate but obviously that term was not too popular-it had a nasty ring to it-so now we have the rather fanciful term `separation rate'. Let us get back to the reality of what we are talking about. Let us abandon the Hawkespeak of separation rates and face up to the fact that what we have seen is a driving from the armed forces of thousands of men and women who chose this career because it was what they wanted to do. They chose a career in which they knew they would be making some sacrifices. They knew they would be moving more often than other people and they knew they would be away from their families at times. However, they felt it was a career that was worth while and it was something to which they wanted to be committed for themselves, their families and their country. What has happened? Those sentiments have been destroyed. This Government has destroyed that sort of commitment. In passing I mention that the Government has also destroyed the commitment of nurses in this country. Nursing is a profession which consists mainly of women who were totally dedicated to what they were doing but because their conditions and wages in recent times have been so poorly attended to we have had strikes in the nursing profession. This situation has not occurred just in the defence forces. We have been getting the figures relating to those who have resigned from the Services on a monthly basis but they have obviously become so embarrassing to the Government that that has been abandoned. I remind honourable members that it was a Labor Minister for Defence, Lance Barnard, who in 1973 introduced monthly figures for those resigning from the armed forces. He said the reason for introducing this measure was that it was `consistent with the Government's policy of informing the community of pertinent defence matters'. I can only conclude that by 1987 it is Labor policy to see that the community is not informed of pertinent defence matters. The last known resignation rate figures were a disgrace; in June 1987 the figure was 749. Can the Government deny that in July the figure was 1,000 and for August it was 823, including a total of 215 officers? That is an indication that 10,000 men and women will be lost from the Services during 1987 and 1988. There has been the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, the White Paper and the Hamilton Review of the Effect of Service Life on Spouses. There is no need for there to be such delay in dealing with these important matters. A tribunal brought in a virtually meaningless response to the plight of the armed services. Somehow it decided that 40 hours a week was the average number of hours worked per week in the Services. The evidence given was 52 hours and I cannot think of anyone who would not accept that as being the more likely figure. That is part of the reason why its report generally has been treated as it has. I want to talk specifically about what it really means to be a service family and what such families have had to put up with. As has been mentioned, the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme has been cut by 2 per cent. Who really believes that the Government will get around to restoring it even if the economy does improve under this Government, which is unlikely. The conditions of service are atrocious. Let us look at them. Nobody is suggesting that in the past there have not been imperfections, and there is no need to go into them in great detail because that fact is accepted and acknowledged. For four years this Government has failed to address the issues that are now coming to a head. With whatever imperfections there have been in the past resignation rates have never been anything like what they are now, as has already been stated in this debate. Of 23,000 Defence Force homes, 12,000 fail to meet the requirements of service scales and standards for accommodation; 6,000 of these have been earmarked for demolition-in other words they have been condemned-but they are still occupied by our defence personnel and their families. We are told that $75m has been allocated this year to Defence Force housing but let us not forget that $65m of that amount relates to projects that have already been commenced, so the figure needs to be looked at for what it really is. Of that amount, $28m is committed to the new developments at Tindal in the Northern Territory. I am not suggesting that they are not needed but let us get into perspective the housing figure which is being cited. The standard of housing of most of our Defence Force personnel is appalling. I want to talk about the wives, and the conditions in which they have lived. Every time they move they have to change their carpets, their floor coverings. If honourable senators do not think that is costly, I can assure them that it is. The wife of a serving officer who recently retired told me that she had moved 32 times in 32 years. One can imagine the cost of just the floor coverings. As a consequence there is no possibility that personnel can ever afford to have the sort of floor coverings they would like; they are constantly having to make do. I now turn to adequate security arrangements. More often then not when a family moves into a house they have to spend money changing locks, getting locks fixed and having the house adequately secured. They bear that cost. Many houses are without adequate heating or, in some instances, adequate cooling. In some cases no heating is supplied at all. Honourable senators can imagine that cost which a normal family does not have to bear. Many older houses have no built-in wardrobes, no built-in cupboards, and so service personnel are put to the cost of providing that sort of furniture. They probably have to buy their furniture cheaply, secondhand, and they are not able to live in the sorts of conditions that they would like or would like to provide for their families. Frequently, on moving to a new house, one has to put up new curtain rods. Honourable senators opposite might smile or laugh at this and think that a few curtain rods are neither here nor there, but it all adds up when it comes to trying to balance a meagre defence family budget. Other things include flyscreens and insulation; and, if one has young children, one must make sure that the fences around the house are high enough to ensure that toddlers do not wander away. That is an additional expense. Little things such as exhaust fans in the kitchens and bathrooms of these old houses, if they are there at all, rarely work and must be attended to. Many of these houses do not have any sort of lock-up shed or accommodation where things can be stored and no shelves or high cupboards where dangerous substances or medicines can be kept. There are no non-slip surfaces on outside steps and no safety rails on high verandahs. Honourable senators may think that this has little to do with defence, but it has a lot to do with the quality of life and the stress that these families are placed under as they move around the country every two years, as suggested by the previous speaker. However, with the resignation rate as it is, relocation is much more frequent: people must move about and uproot everything and start again; take their children out of school and shift them perhaps into a totally new system; change uniforms for their children and buy new ones; and cope with the social changes of their children, who must leave friends behind and make new friends. That places extra stress on families. What about the careers that so many women must give up when they are part of a defence force family? They are not able to pursue careers in the way that they would like. These people are entitled to a wage which compensates for some of the things that I have loosely mentioned this afternoon. That is what we are talking about-the number of moves. For example, I can describe the difference in Canberra between the rate of pay for serving personnel and the rate for non-uniform personnel working in the same place. I refer to two men-one in uniform the other not-living at Wanniassa and both working out at Fairbairn. Because there are no buses to Fairbairn the non-uniform man receives extra money, but the person in uniform does not receive any extra money and must bear the cost associated with travelling a long way to get to work. That is the reality. I know of men in uniform in Canberra who have second jobs working for security firms to try to make ends meet and support their families, especially when they have young children. They move away from their extended family to areas where perhaps they do not know many people to whom they can call for support. It is particularly difficult then for the wife to go out to work because the children need their mother at home when there is not the sort of support that a young family can get in other circumstances. The Government says that it is acting on the Hamilton report. That is correct to an extent, but it has had 18 months and it has not made much progress so far. In reality, the Government has done nothing more than set up the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Service, which is not yet operational. The first positions in the new organisation were advertised only last month. It really will be more than a year until it is fully operational, which is some 2 1/2 years after the report. Recruitment has virtually only just started, and I think that that is a disgrace. It indicates that the emphasis in defence is not on the men and women of our serving forces. Recently, substantial changes were announced to the defence service home loans scheme without consultation. The Government has now backed down from that but the arrangement was to replace the low interest $25,000 loan with a cash grant of $10,000 and to privatise the scheme. That may have worked well, but this other arrangement sent fear into the hearts of most serving officers and men in our armed forces. As I said, the Government has backed down but it is another nail in the coffin of morale when these things are done, and that is why the resignation rate is so high. It distresses me enormously to find that people that I have known for a long time, friends of mine who believed in their careers, are resigning because they see no future in the armed forces. They see no point in being a part of the armed services of this country. That is a tragedy. It is a crisis. It is a matter of urgency. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —I call Senator McKiernan. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(4.25) —Before I speak to this matter of urgency I take this opportunity-the first I have had-to congratulate you, Mr Acting Deputy President, on your election to high office. Obviously it is a tribute to your past working experience with the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, which has provided such a major contribution to the affairs of this nation. Senator Richardson —Two metal workers together. Senator McKIERNAN —I admit to a slight bias in this, Senator Richardson. This afternoon the Senate is considering a matter of urgency moved by Senator Newman. It is an interesting matter of urgency, but I do not believe that anyone on this side of the chamber would have picked it this morning as the most important matter of urgency that could be raised in Federal Parliament this afternoon. However, it is a matter of urgency and a matter that this Australian Labor Party Government, under the prime ministership of Bob Hawke, recognises as being of vital importance. In moving this matter of urgency, Senator Newman placed a great deal of stress on the question of leadership. Leadership is mentioned in the motion, and this is where we must question what we are actually debating. The fact that we have an honourable senator opposite getting up and talking about leadership obviously brings the whole matter into question. The Opposition would know a tremendous amount about leadership because in the recent past it has had leadership contest after leadership contest. This will go on for quite some time until it can get some decent leadership. In fact, if we had some type of leadership from those opposite we might be dealing with different matters of urgency in this place. Senator Newman also placed some stress on talking not only to service men and women but also to the wives. This is one area where I will recognise what is happening on the Opposition benches. Finally, in the latter part of the twentieth century, those who make up the Opposition are recognising the value of the role that women in this society, including servicewomen and wives of servicemen, are playing in the Australian armed forces and in Australia in total. Of course, it is belated; nonetheless, it is happening and we must recognise it. Quite a deal of time was spent on the question of service pay, which is also mentioned in the motion. Senator Newman and other senators opposite, including Senator McLean, speak with forked tongues on this. This very morning the Leader of the Opposition in this place was on national radio calling yet again for cuts in workers wages and conditions-not exempting service personnel. He was calling for cuts in the wages and salaries and conditions of every worker in Australia. Why? Because a few greedy speculators on the stock exchanges have had their fingers burnt, now the Opposition, through its leader in this place, has said on AM this morning that we should not go ahead with the national wage increase. Senator Stone —That is what he said; not what you said a minute ago. Senator McKIERNAN —That is what he said-cut wages. If there is no wage case-- Senator Reid —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: there is no way that it can be interpreted that a suggestion that the national wage case should go ahead means that there will be a cut in wages. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator McKIERNAN —Of course there is no point of order. Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The decisions in national wage cases are to compensate workers for what has happened in the previous three-month, six-month or 12-month period or whatever period the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is considering. If the wage increase is not passed on at a particular period, there will be a wage cut. That is what the Opposition is about. The stock market has supposedly crashed, but I would say that it has readjusted itself to the levels of 12 months ago. Senator Newman —I wish to raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. The honourable senator seems to be a long way from any relevance to the subject under debate. He is talking about the stock market and the national wage case. The matter before the Chair is the need to recognise that there is a crisis of confidence in Defence Force morale. I ask the Chair to call the honourable senator to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Other honourable senators have strayed to the extent Senator McKiernan has. There is no point of order. Senator McKIERNAN —If Senator Newman had been in the chamber at the time, she would have heard reference to service pay, and that is what I am talking about. The Labor Government has brought these payments up to a reasonable standard. We would like to do a lot more, but unfortunately circumstances will not allow it. I argue that if the present Opposition were now in power it would repeat the performance of the 1930s and probably bring in a British economist to cut wages even further than the Opposition is suggesting at the moment. One has to recognise and put on record what this Labor Government has done in the vital area of wages and conditions. The Labor Government-not the Opposition-set up the tribunal to examine salary and wage levels in the defence forces. The Opposition calls for wage cuts and freezes. Indeed, that is what Labor inherited when we gained government in 1983-wage freezes. As Senator Robert Ray said earlier, one cannot remember any Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearing when the coalition Government supported increases in wages and conditions for workers. It has not happened and it will not happen. Senator Short knows that because he is anti-worker. Senator Short —I raise a point of order. Senator McKiernan knows perfectly well that that statement was incorrect, and I ask him to withdraw it. Senator Robert Ray —I rise on the point of order. Senator McKiernan is required only to withdraw unparliamentary language. Senator Short has been here and in the other place long enough to know that. Opposition members-not Senator Short personally but other honourable senators-have been dishing it out today. They should learn to take it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! There has been a deal of cut and thrust across the chamber. I suggest that Senator McKiernan get on with his speech. Senator McKIERNAN —Perhaps I ought to tone it down a little, but it is difficult, having heard Senator Newman, as she said herself, going on and on and on. It gets the dander up a bit. Let us look at Labor's record on pay and allowances for personnel in the Australian defence forces. We, as I said, created an independent pay tribunal and the defence forces now have direct access to that tribunal. We accept the decisions of the tribunal and give the defence forces themselves direct and immediate access to it. We in government have responsibilities in this respect, as we have in the total area of wage and salary adjustments. We have a responsibility to put our arguments as a government. We do not always go in, as do Senator Newman and her colleagues, and argue against these things. Defence forces personnel receive all national wage increases, a point I mentioned earlier. The Opposition argues that the national wage case should be deferred. In deferring decisions the Opposition would also be denying service personnel any increases that may flow from movements in the consumer price index. We have introduced, as Senator Ray said earlier, special allowances to personnel serving in submarines, an area of employment that I would not like to get into. I do not like the closed confines of small spaces and the dangers associated with that work. General service personnel who serve in the field also received a recent increase in allowances. The general service allowance increased by 22 per cent, the field allowance by $4 to $12 a day. The Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal is shortly to examine a request to increase flying allowances. The Government has taken other steps which have been mentioned by Senator Ray in detail. Therefore, I shall not fill up the Hansard any further by merely repeating those matters for the sake of it. Senator Reid, in a fairly reasoned though perhaps over-emotional contribution to the debate, talked about visiting the homes of service personnel. She said that we should not go back in history to see what decisions were made in bygone days. She said what mattered was what was happening now. But it is not fair that Senator Reid's side of politics had 30 years in government and did nothing except look at super-duper aircraft carriers and spent no money on housing, but now expects a Labor Government in 4 1/2 years to readjust everything. Senator Ray went into detail on the $750m allocated by this Government to be spent on housing for Defence Force personnel, the wives, husbands and families over the next decade. Again, I shall not labour the point. In talking about the families of Defence Force personnel, we have it on record and can claim to recognise that the spouses of military personnel are as vital to the defence of this nation as are the personnel themselves. Senator Stone —You do nothing for either. Senator McKIERNAN —We are the ones who have recognised them-and it is the first time that they have ever been recognised. I could go into what happened under conservative governments in further debate, if Opposition senators want me to do so. We could debate the affirmative action legislation. Then we shall see where the Opposition stands-not only on the question of defence forces wives, husbands and personnel, but on the whole range of equality of the sexes in this nation. We shall see how many Opposition senators cross the floor on that one. I conclude by turning to the honourable member for O'Connor, Wilson Tuckey-- Senator Newman —He wasn't in the debate, was he? Senator McKIERNAN —He was not in the debate, but before the election he promised to privatise the housing given to Defence Force personnel. No doubt there were Opposition frontbenchers who were highly embarrassed about Mr Wilson Tuckey's comments. Indeed, the service personnel and their families must have been horrified because they know what they would be facing if the coalition were elected to government. The rents currently in the range of $50 would undoubtedly be increased to $100 a week, or in places such as Canberra or other places where housing is scarce rents probably would go a lot higher than that. This Government has a commendable record in this area. We do not accept this motion of urgency. We recognise that there are some problems, and we are addressing them as comprehensively as possible because one cannot do things in isolation. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(4.39) —Neither the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) nor Senator McKiernan seems to recognise that we have a crisis on our hands. In fact, those honourable senators seem surprised that the Opposition brought on this emergency motion. Senator Robert Ray —It is an urgency motion. Senator SHEIL —It is an urgency motion, but certainly there is an emergency and a crisis. The figures that have appeared in the last few months are irrefutable. It is ridiculous to go back to every government since the last war in order to blame them for the situation which the present Government has got itself into. It is completely irresponsible for a government to neglect the defence element of its responsibility to the nation. Defence is the most important role of government. Every government of every country has trouble in paying for its defence forces, particularly in peace time, but that is a role that the people want government to take. We are a major nation in the South Pacific region, which is becoming more destabilised. The doctrine of `no foreseeable threat' has been exploded. How much warning did we get that Timor would dissolve into a revolution or that Indonesia would have that fracas with Papua New Guinea, which is continuing? How much warning did we have of the Indo-China problems in Vietnam and Korea? We have very little warning. What warning did we have of the trouble in the Philippines or the coup in Fiji? One had very little warning of these incidents and defence preparedness is most important. I am sure that this Government puts more emphasis on buying votes by supplying welfare to people because there are not that many votes in the defence forces. If it keeps treating the defence forces in this way there will be even fewer votes in those forces for the Australian Labor Party. When the Minister for Home Affairs was speaking he talked about the White Paper that the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, put out. If the paper was good, the results of the Government's treatment of the paper or any action it took subsequently have not been good. Whereas the Government may have bought some materiel, it certainly has not applied itself to the compassionate role it always claims for itself of looking after the people who man the machines and, indeed, the forces themselves. The Minister talked about the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) not visiting Defence Force wives or the defence installations because she was so busy in Parliament. I do not think that any Labor Ministers in this Government have found that their attendances in Parliament are an impediment to visiting any place they want to, including the rainforests. Senator Robert Ray —This is just a cat fight; that's all this is. Senator SHEIL —No, Senator Ray. She has been opening plenty of fetes in Canberra and attending to her own electoral matters here. Senator Newman —Or going to parties. Senator SHEIL —That is right. To say that the Defence Force retirement benefit (DFRB) is equivalent to age pensions and that everybody had to share in the cutbacks is not really correct because age pensioners were asked to put up with a six-week deferment in their pensions, whereas the DFRB recipients were asked to accept a 2 per cent cut that continues year after year and, of course, gets worse with inflation. I cannot accept those arguments or the arguments that have been raised by the Government against the motion. The Government cannot alter the facts as they exist today. It has a crisis on its hands which is shown in its figures. When we talk about the morale of the forces we have to look, on the one hand, at the career structures of the service men and women and the administration within the Department of Defence. On the other hand, we have to look at the pay and conditions and the housing of the wives and children. It has been an eye opener for me this afternoon to hear some of the problems that the wives have suffered. I notice that the next speaker, Senator Burns, has been complimented in this debate as having come from the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. But at one stage the Defence Force's wages were tied to the metal workers award. Of course, at that time members of the forces did not get all the benefits, such as overtime. They do now, but it is worth only $1 an hour-it is not the overtime that metal workers would get, plus all the benefits that unionists get. Also, when the defence forces get a wage rise it is often deferred and delayed. They often have to put up with this as they cannot protest. The Minister must accept that there are demonstrations going on by people from the defence forces, their wives and their friends. These are people who would not normally demonstrate at all. They are sending in petitions, writing letters and taking whatever action they can. These are the people who have committed their lives to the service of their country and not to a particular government, as has been stated here. They are demonstrating, but neither the Minister nor Mrs Kelly are going out to talk to them. This is a crisis. I do not know on whom this Government thinks it can rely. It cannot rely on the United Nations-it has not got a very good friend there. In fact, the United Nations has a very bad record. It was instituted to be an international forum to promote discussions so that we could avoid wars but since the Second World War, when the United Nations was formed, we have had 150 major wars. It has not been a forum that has shown any effectiveness in stopping wars. This Government cannot rely on neighbours; we have to be self-sufficient. Despite all the talk by the Minister this afternoon about self-sufficiency, we have not got it and we are getting less of it as service personnel retire. Heaven knows, the defence forces have different roles in peace and war, during times of confrontation and police actions such as those in Cyprus or the Middle East. They are all different. In peace time, such as now, we have these training exercises, such as Diamond Dollar. That exercise exposed enormous weaknesses. Having to sustain themselves for more than four to six weeks in the north of Australia may not have been important from a defence aspect but it was a good test of our troops. If there were an invading force coming into the north then it would experience the same difficulties as our own forces and probably could not sustain itself for more than four to six weeks either. I was impressed when I heard of the difficulties of changing houses so often, particularly when the family is given a changing-of-address allowance. I bet that that allowance would not be enough to cover all the reconnection fees for the telephone, water, heating or cooling. I happen to have been on the Joint Committee on Public Works and have had to look at some of our Defence Force housing. It is pretty bad and we are not taking steps to replace it. The further we let it go, the more expensive it will be to fix up those things. I can understand how wives and families would be dreadfully upset with the conditions under which they are forced to live in some of the housing we have. I turn to the figures relating to defence funding, which are getting harder to get because of the restrictions that have been placed on figures coming from the Department of Defence. Previously, we were spending 4.5 per cent to 5 per cent of gross national product (GNP) on defence. In 1987 the figure is 2.7 per cent, which is an enormous reduction-even if our GNP is up. It is not sufficient to spend on defence. Our dollar is down and, of course, our costs are up. Whatever we are doing is not enough for defence. On the question of materiel we have decided to build six submarines and to build the housing to construct them in Adelaide. I notice that that project will cost $90m, but the components are to be made in Sydney or Melbourne. They are to be trucked to Adelaide to be put together. That is the same sort of problem that the Americans have by making components in suitable electorates. They then wind up having to pay $50 for a nut and $100 for a spanner. These are ridiculous pricing arrangements. We are to spend $28m on the four new survey vessels to map the north. They will not have a gun or platform on them and they would not even be able to defend themselves against Indonesian pirates. The reason why we have to have them is that our current survey vessels keep hitting the ground. Presumably, if we were attacked from the north the invaders would hit the same reefs and shoals. I do not think the danger to Australia will be a snowflake fall of sampans on the top end of the country. The danger is more likely to be a nuclear submarine off Sydney Harbour, which could paralyse Australia in one hit just by being there, rather like the Tirpitz during the Second World War when it was put into the Tromso fiord. It controlled the whole North Sea. It never had to leave the fiord. It was only when the Germans got complacent that the Allies were able to get rid of the Tirpitz. But I am straying from the subject a little. Honourable senators opposite were talking about materiel. We are talking about the morale of our defence forces. Morale is bad, as shown by the figures. A couple of figures have been quoted this afternoon but I would like to give some figures on total wastage. In 1983 there was 9.37 per cent wastage. This year there is 12.78 per cent wastage. Wastage has steadily increased every year. It is estimated that next year it will be 15.6 per cent. Translated into actual figures, that means that in the last three years 25,250 service men and women, that is, 36 per cent of the Australian defence forces, left the Services. That is an enormous figure. From July this year there has been a complete embargo on getting figures out of the defence forces. I can understand why the Government would not want the figures to come out, but figures do get out as the heads of the Services start to worry and to lobby people. Previously, we had a Minister for the Army, a Minister for the Navy and a Minister for the Air Force. Senator Robert Ray —What were you? Senator SHEIL —I was the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Members of the three arms of the forces could make representations directly to their own Minister. Now they cannot do that. What is more or less a bureaucratic blockade is causing the forces no end of trouble when they want to make requisitions for men, materiel, pay or conditions or when they want to make representations about their problems. Defence Force problems are largely political. That is why easy approachability to Ministers is needed. One does not want it controlled by the bureaucracy, but that is what is happening now. I understand that there is an enormous row because the bureaucracy cannot agree on the type of compatible computers to be used by the three arms of the forces. As I said, the wastage figure for the last three years is 25,250. If it goes up to the expected 15.6 per cent it will mean that over the last four years we will have lost over 36,000 people. That is 52 per cent of the Defence Force-an unbelievable figure. No wonder a cork has been put on the letting out of information. The male officer wastage figure from 1982 to 1987 has gone from 5.4 per cent to 9.8 per cent. If it keeps escalating at that rate, this year it will be 12.5 per cent, more than double. The figures that the Minister quoted today-I do not know why he let them out if there is a cork on them-are a damning indictment-- Senator Robert Ray —They were let out in the Estimates committee. Senator SHEIL —Is that where they came from? They are bad. The figure for pilot wastage, which is usually around 35 to 40 a year-we train 60 to 65-in 1985-86 was 70. In 1986-87 it was 107. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(4.54) —One cannot speak in a debate on this issue without thinking about the end result of expenditure on defence-or war, as some people would express it. It seems that every country has a defence capacity but nobody wants to attack anyone else. We can see an illustration of the fallacy of that if we consider the Middle East. I intend to stray somewhat from the very narrow aspect of the defence area. I know I will have your support in this matter, Mr Deputy President. It is necessary to bring into dispute the sincerity of the mover of this motion and those who support her. Let us consider the role and history of the Australian Labor Party. It has always worked very hard for world peace. I do not suggest that nobody in the Liberal Party of Australia has similar views, as I know that some of its members do. That is the one area in which they are correct. The Labor Party was opposed to the Vietnam war, and it brought the troops out when it was elected in 1972. It has always favoured the use of diplomacy rather than the use of arms. It has favoured trying with all its capacity to create friendship among nations as opposed to a preparedness to be aggressive to one's own ends. There is a fairly substantial indication of this in the appointment, for the first time in the history of this country, of an Ambassador for Disarmament, Richard Butler, who does a very good job at the world's meeting places in arguing for world peace, looking at the idea not of unilateral disarmament but of gradual disarmament, heading for a peace which would not disadvantage any country. As a Party we have always extended the olive branch. Nevertheless, we have been prepared to develop our defence capacity against those who think differently from us. Obviously, the armed forces want people who are dedicated to the idea of defending Australia. It has been said that the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, has a bias towards the equipment side of his portfolio. I suggest that if one studies the opinions of people who understand the requirements of a defence force in any country one will find that they point out, using facts, figures and statistics-and even photographs for honourable senators opposite who cannot understand things unless they have photographs-that equipment is becoming much more important in comparison with manpower. There is a fairly big difference in the way that the Battle of Waterloo and the Falklands war were fought. One would agree that equipment is vitally important. I am not suggesting that the people who use that equipment are unimportant. We want people involved in the defence forces because they see the need for a defence force that is properly motivated, financed and developed by a government that is properly motivated, a government that does not want to make war on other countries but that is prepared to defend itself in a very efficient fashion. It has been said that there is a crisis of confidence in the ALP Government and that it lacks credibility. I suppose that one can say that and ask that it be accepted on face value, but it cannot be accepted in that way. Anyone who believes that people entering the defence forces do so with wonderful, lofty motives, and that nobody does so to get training or because he might not be able to handle a job out there on the civil side of employment, is quite wrong. We have all sorts of people in the Army, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy. Some time ago a person who had recently left the forces murdered a number of people. However, that is an exception. I make that point only to show that there are all sorts of people in the forces. Other people have carried our their responsibilities in a very fine way. Some people have given their lives. Many people today carry medals for their efforts. One of the things people joining the defence forces look for, as do other people, is a proper reward for the effort they make. Under the Fraser Government, there was an Army wage freeze for some 18 months at least. At least we can say one thing about the Fraser Government: it shared wage freezes across the whole nation. The one thing it did not share around was prices control. I make the point that what happened then-and what would be proposed now, if the Opposition were in power, in relation to the $7 increase; an increase which should be granted to all workers, including service personnel-was that we saw a reduction in real wages. I challenge those opposite to question that point. The Government has decided to continue with an adequate Budget allocation. Of course, this is quite different from what was suggested by the Opposition during the election campaign. It was all gung ho in suggesting that we should reduce spending; in fact it still says that. I have heard Senator Stone remark on that. He is very much dedicated to the idea of reducing Government spending. But I do not know how we can reduce Government spending and leave the defence vote alone and also satisfy the sorts of criticisms made by Senator Reid. Those people who say that they want to reduce taxes or have a flat rate of tax and reduce government spending really want to look after the filthy rich-those people who have recently lost millions and millions of dollars on the stock exchange. Let me say clearly-I hope they will read this, although they probably will not bother-that I have no sympathy for them. If they can make huge paper profits by speculation, they must also be prepared to lose money. But I do express some sympathy for the ordinary people who have lost money as a result of following the moves, initiatives and advice of financial advisers. A number of questions were raised by Opposition spokesmen and by the Australian Democrats. For instance, Senator McLean talked about the lack of morale. It seemed to me that he put the proposition on the basis that it was the fault of the Labor Government, as though Senator Robert Ray and I were each in charge of a platoon, that we decided what the pay and conditions would be and how communications would be carried out in the Army-as though it was totally the Government's fault. But it is not. Morale has been a problem in armies throughout the world since time began, for all sorts of different reasons. To suggest that there was not a morale problem during the years of the Liberal-Country Party governments in my view would be to tell a gross and deliberate untruth. Senator Reid —The number resigning was not as great, was it? Senator BURNS —Again, a number of factors affect the number of people resigning. It is fairly clearly understood that in times of full employment it is much more difficult to get people to join the Army, and when jobs are available outside the Army people are much more prepared to leave because they have somewhere to go. With regard to the pilot situation, of course the Australian Labor Party is concerned about that. But would anybody on the other side suggest, and expect to be believed, that all of the pilots who join the Royal Australian Air Force do so with an absolute dedication to defend this country against the enemy by flying war planes? I suggest that a number of them do; history shows that. But I suggest that a lot of them would work out what it would cost them and the time it would take them to become a pilot with Qantas Airways Ltd through a civil approach as against how they could become a Qantas pilot via the Air Force. So it is not just the case that when people have left the defence forces at any given time in history it has been the fault of a political party or a coalition of parties in power. All of those other factors have had an effect. Wages are another factor. I have heard some comment made about people being afraid to wear their uniform to work at a given period in Australian history. Senator Reid —Told not to wear them. Senator BURNS —They were told not to wear their uniforms to work. Senator Stone —In 1973. Senator BURNS —That was in 1973; I thank the honourable senator. But that was a rather small inconvenience compared with the fact that people who refused to go to Vietnam and murder Vietnamese were put in jail because they followed their conscience and would not support a government that blindly sent people to Vietnam. I think that not being allowed to wear one's uniform to work was a small sacrifice to make. Senator Stone —So they went to Vietnam and murdered the Vietnamese, did they? Is that what you are saying? Senator BURNS —Yes, they did. We talk about job satisfaction in the Army. I hope that, when people talk about job satisfaction, they mean what people in the Army do in peacetime, which as far as I am aware is to do such things as help people in floods and develop skills that can be used later on in a nation at peace. After all, it has already been said that we all want world peace. I hope that they do not mean that the personnel, in order to feel that they are doing a good job, feel that they have to be trained to kill other people. That is what all armies do-train to be efficient killers. It may be defensive, but that is what they do. I hope we are not talking about that. I hope we are talking about the former, about people developing a capacity that they will use in times of peace, or sharpening up a capacity to protect us if we are attacked by other nations. Senator Reid talked about nurses' conditions. My heart almost broke when she described how terrible the situation was. Let me remind Senator Reid that over a period of time nurses throughout this nation were expected to take as a reward for their efforts the knowledge that they were serving a noble cause. I could get a copy for her of an industrial gazette of 1930 from Queensland when junior nurses were knocked back for wages and told that they should accept that they were giving a service to the community and that their families should subsidise their living costs until they were trained and competent nurses. In fact it was in this very area, in Canberra, in the early 1960s when the unions who represented the nurses finally went on strike against a Liberal-Country Party government because the nurses refused to do menial work for which they were not trained. They refused to continue to work for low wages, which is what they were receiving under that administration. From that base, the lot of nurses in every State in this country, even if they do not have the wages and conditions that they think they should have, has been improved out of sight. Mention has been made of old houses and the amount of work required and the facilities that have to be provided by the service personnel renting those houses. The fact is that all of those houses were built long ago. They were built under Liberal-Country Party governments. I suggest that at that time they were probably built within certain budgetary constraints, or built on the cheap, to use a crude term. What the current Government has done is establish an organisation under which better housing conditions can be created. Finally, the best way that people in the forces can be represented is not in the Senate, but through their own union, which they established when a Liberal-Country Party government was in office and would not listen to them. They found it necessary to develop that organisation, which is a very clear indication of the absolute lack of sincerity of Senator Reid, who I think speaks just to justify being a senator. I suggest to her-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.09) —In the very short space of time that I have, which is about two minutes, I wish to remind the Senate that we are dealing with a motion of urgency which has been presented to the Parliament by Senator Jocelyn Newman. The reason I will take only about two minutes is to enable Senator Newman to respond. I remind the Senate that the motion states: The need to recognise that a crisis of confidence has arisen in Australia's defence forces as a direct consequence of the policies of the Labor Government and a lack of both leadership and genuine concern about service pay and conditions by the Ministers for Defence and Defence Science and Personnel. Whoever is responsible, there is, as I think we all know, a crisis of confidence within the defence forces. We would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to acknowledge that. I am sure that each of us would have had representations of concern from individuals within the Services and from their representative association, the Armed Forces Federation of Australia. I am pleased that Senator Newman has raised this matter in the Senate. I have spoken about defence issues on innumerable occasions in this chamber. Today I am not about to speak on those broad issues that have been canvassed, but I would be very happy to address them when and as the time arises. Here we have a specific motion which deals with `a genuine concern about service pay and conditions'. If we focus on that, and if this Senate adopts this motion, I think it will strengthen the hand of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) in Cabinet. For that reason, if for no other, I will be supporting this motion. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.12) —in reply-Clearly, the Government has no answer to this urgency motion. We have had rantings and ravings from members of the Government, but what is of great concern to me-and it should be of great concern to all honourable senators and to the nation-is that they are still refusing to recognise that they even have a problem. Senator Robert Ray concentrated on what a great job the Government is doing spending taxpayers' dollars on materiel-and certainly our equipment needs to be maintained at a steady rate. Senator McKiernan went on and on about cuts in wages. Last, but not least, Senator Burns gave us a burst about unionism in the forces. I am sure that that is all a great help to the servicemen who are so worried about their position and who had hopes that some members of the Government might have appreciated what the situation really was! For members of the Government to talk about events 30 years ago is a complete and utter failure to come to terms with their responsibilities. I thank my colleagues for their support in this debate and I thank Senator Harradine for his brief words and for allowing me the opportunity to close the debate. I also thank Senator McLean for what I believe was a most thoughtful contribution, which I would expect from him with his proper and deep understanding of the subject through his own experience. But the Ministers either do not know the facts or are not reporting them as they are to Cabinet. I can only believe that, if they were doing that, the money needed to keep the defence budget at the standard required by the Government's own White Paper would have to be forthcoming. The Government does not understand just how serious the matter is; it has its priorities wrong. People have to come first. What is the use of expensive equipment if we do not have the experienced personnel needed to operate it? In the papers today the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) displayed her naivete when she asked where the cuts could be made in order to spend more on personnel. Senator Ray repeated that inanity today during the debate. The point is that the defence budget has been cut to the stage where it is simply not adequate. This Government also has to address its priorities in this area. The defence forces are being taken for granted, are being neglected and are being discriminated against. They are being expected to accept a standard of living that is not required of the rest of the nation. Therein lies the terrible unfairness of it all. The Government should be showing leadership. It should protect these people, who do not have the right to associate in some form of labour union, despite what Senator Burns said about the Armed Forces Federation, which, by the way, the Government continually refuses to talk to and have a meaningful dialogue with. It never thinks of appointing members of that Federation to bodies such as the working party on the defence service home loans scheme. It is no good Senator Burns talking about unionism, as the Government does not even recognise the professional association that the defence forces now have. Australia deserves a defence force that is proud to serve the nation, not one that cringes every time the Government mentions defence or what it will do to conditions of service. We are suffering a crisis of confidence in our defence forces. The quicker the Government recognises that and starts to take some meaningful action for the honourable men and women who are serving us, the better our defence will be and, more importantly, the happier people in the defence forces will be and the better protected Australia will be as a nation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This afternoon we are debating the annual report of the Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA) for the financial year which has just ended, 1986-87. The Senate will be aware that the Prices Surveillance Authority was established by the Hawke Government in March 1984, following legislation passed by the Parliament in the previous year. The Authority's offices are located principally in Sydney and Melbourne and its role in the pricing area involves its looking at declared enterprises. Those enterprises must notify the PSA of any proposed price rises. In scrutinising proposed price rises, the Prices Surveillance Authority must also look at such things as the likely impact on investment and the likely impact on employment of any decisions it makes in regard to proposed prices. The Authority had its origins in the accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions which developed under this Government from 1983 onwards. Of course, that accord involved a strategy of attempting to keep down competing income claims and, therefore, price rises, while expanding the economy and getting away from the very rapid rates of inflation that we had under the Fraser-Howard Government by enabling an incomes policy to work at the same time that inflation was being kept down. In setting up the PSA, the Hawke Government was taking a major step away from the previous policy of the Fraser-Howard Government, which was to manage the Australian economy by creating more and more slack in the labour market. If one reduces to essentials the economic policy adopted when Mr Howard was Treasurer of Australia, one sees that it was a policy very much of raising unemployment to moderate wage claims and price rises in the community. As we know, that policy did not work. Over the life of the Fraser-Howard Government more and more unemployment was required to produce a given effect on prices and the so-called declared policy of that Government of fighting inflation first was a dismal failure. When the Hawke Government was elected to power in March 1983 we inherited double digit inflation from the Fraser- Howard Government. In fact, in the 12 months to March 1983, the consumer price index rose by 11 1/2 per cent, so we inherited both double digit inflation and double digit unemployment at the same time. It is interesting to note that, at the 1987 election, the Opposition parties, led by Mr Howard, wanted to abolish the Prices Surveillance Authority. I would be interested to hear in the present climate, when we are trying to find out from Opposition spokespersons-both Mr Howard and Senator Stone-where they would put the knife into government spending and where they would specify the detailed cuts in expenditure which they are calling for, whether they would proceed to the abolition of the Prices Surveillance Authority. I would be very interested to hear that, because we can link the operations of the Authority under Labor to the fall in the inflation rate. As I have pointed out, when this Government came to power it inherited an 11 1/2 per cent rise in the inflation rate as measured by the consumer price index. The figures that were released yesterday by the Australian Statistician show that, rather than having double digit inflation, it had been reduced to 8.3 per cent, well down on the figures of four years ago. Inflation, quite clearly, is tracking down. For two quarters in a row, the June quarter and the September quarter of this year, inflation has been running at less than 2 percentage points. With an inflation rate of 2.9 per cent in the December quarter of 1986, I think we can look forward with considerable confidence to a further fall in the inflation rate in the December quarter this year. The annual rate should in fact fall quite significantly below the 8.3 per cent rate that was recorded yesterday. When the figures are available late in January, I think we will see an annual rate of less than 8 per cent for the calendar year 1987. I think that is far preferable to the inflation rate under Mr Howard of 11 1/2 per cent, and the Prices Surveillance Authority has been partly responsible. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(5.21) —I would like to make two points in relation to the annual report of the Prices Surveillance Authority. They both relate to petrol pricing. I draw the Senate's attention to page 28 of the report, which states that of all household weekly expenditures on commodities which amount to $361.84, only $50.25 or 13.9 per cent relates to item which are covered by the Prices Surveillance Act. Of that roughly 14 per cent or $50 of household expenditures, we find that nearly $18 or roughly 36 per cent of that related to the price of petrol, and petrol was therefore a very significant factor in that section of household expenditure covered by the Prices Surveillance Authority. In moving around Australia one finds that over time there is an enormous variation in the price of petrol, both from place to place and depending on the time of the week or the month. Petrol prices in Adelaide may indeed be amongst the lowest in Australia. I note that very often in Canberra the price is about 58c or 59c per litre, but recently in Adelaide it was down to as low as 38c per litre. Most country people are paying up to 68c per litre. With that as a background, I turn to page 57 of the report, which states that there were 218 notices of proposed price changes for petroleum products. While 57 of these 218 were withdrawn, the majority were in fact granted. The report states: . . . `the Authority offered no objection to the proposed prices.' It goes on to point out that the Authority endorsed a wholesale price of 53.1c per litre on 30 June 1986, and 49.95c per litre, including excise, on 30 June 1987. It would seem that the price for which petrol is being sold is very often substantially below even the wholesale price which has been agreed by the Prices Surveillance Authority. There is something most odd about the way in which petrol prices are varying so widely around the country and varying from time to time. That brings me to the second point I would like to make in relation to this report. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that in 1927 the then Government set up Commonwealth Oil Refineries, which gave the Government a direct handle on prices in the purchasing, refining and selling of petroleum products. Commonwealth Oil Refineries was sold by the Menzies Government in 1953, and it would now seem that the Prices Surveillance Authority, and through it the Government, is now in a much poorer position to know precisely the true prices in relation to the wholesale purchase of petroleum, the cost of refining and the cost of marketing those products. I think this bears very much on the issue of privatisation. We have lost the ability to have direct access to those figures because Commonwealth Oil Refineries was sold. In this report we have direct evidence that, had the Commonwealth retained the ability to refine and market petroleum products, we would now be in a much better position. Commonwealth Banking Corporation Senator BURNS(Queensland)(5.25) —I would like to commend the annual report of the Prices Surveillance Authority and commend the Authority for the work that it carries out, because it is very important that the price of fuel is looked at from two sides. Over the last five years workers have been asked to accept a loss in real wages-a loss of at least 9 per cent during the wage freeze-plus other amounts of discount that have been decided upon in the wage fixing tribunals. It is much easier for people to talk to workers about wage restraint if they talk about price control. I know that the Authority does not have the sort of control that many people would like. The report indicates that of 437 applications for increases in prices only 15 failed. The 437 were successful because the companies complied with certain established standards, one being compliance with the wage fixing principles. So there was general acceptance by those companies of established guidelines. Even though there may not be a capacity to penalise the business community or to enforce its compliance by sending along the gendarmes, there is that acceptance, which I think is very good. Even those 15 who failed to satisfy the guidelines accepted that they should not increase prices. As a result of the wage fixing principles, which are to some extent reflected in the Authority's decisions, we have seen real labour costs reduced over time. Therefore I believe we should continue to support the concept of price restraint, through supporting the Prices Surveillance Authority. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with section 121 of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon, for the year ended 30 June 1987. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.29) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I hope to be brief in these remarks. I simply want to draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that yesterday the Treasurer (Mr Keating) issued a Press release which bears on some of the matters which are addressed in this report being tabled in the Senate this afternoon, the annual report for 1987 of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. In that Press release the Treasurer mentioned a number of measures which the Government proposes to take by way of amending the Commonwealth Bank Act. I confess an interest in this matter, not merely because it is proper for all senators to be interested in it, but because I spent 5 1/2 years on the board of the Corporation in an ex officio capacity during my term in the Treasury. Indeed, the Treasurer's Press release states that the implementation of the measures set out in that Press release `will complete the restructuring of the Commonwealth banks which was commenced in 1984'. I also want to say in passing that that restructuring was put in train in the Treasury at the time when I was privileged to have some connection with that Department and that restructuring process. I make that point not by way of recalling that insignificant piece of history but in order to make a much more important point. That restructuring in 1984 which was referred to in the Treasurer's Press release had to do with an attempt to provide the Commonwealth Banking Corporation with a better structure of capitalisation on the basis of which it could proceed with its lending program, while at the same time remaining acceptable in terms of capital-asset ratios in the eyes of the business community and particularly the international financial community, because increasingly questions were being raised at that time about the capacity of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to go on lending on the basis of a very slender capital base. The point that that raises, of course, concerns the future of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and its capacity to continue to raise capital, from whatever source, in order to continue to expand its operations, which I have no doubt most people hope and expect it to do-certainly I would expect the Government side to do so. That, in turn, immediately raises questions about what will be the future of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation in relation to what is sometimes called privatisation and what might be called the commercialisation aspect. I do not want to detain the Senate this evening on that particular matter. We will no doubt have an opportunity to debate those questions further. There is only one other question which I want to touch on tonight-although I shall seek leave to continue my remarks later-and that is the following reference in the Treasurer's statement: The Government has also reviewed the role of the Board and the management of the banks and their accountability to the Government. The Government has decided to amend the Act to require the Board of the Corporation to prepare and submit a corporate plan to the Treasurer. Of course, I am well aware that this is part of a general process which the Government is hoping to apply to many statutory corporations. But the Treasurer went on to say: The plan, which will be confidential to the Government- this is the corporate plan of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation - will define the objectives of the Commonwealth Banks and give an outline of the policies and strategies to be pursued achieving those objectives. I take it that, as the Treasurer said in that statement, the plan will be confidential to the Government. But I think it raises some interesting and, potentially at least, disturbing questions about what exactly the board of the Corporation will be actually required to inform the Government about and in what detail and in particular whether it will be required to go into, for example, categories of potential borrowers or particular avenues of lending which the Corporation may have in mind. No doubt, in light of the fact that the plan is to be submitted-because, after all, there is not much point in submitting a plan unless it will be subsequently discussed with the Government-I presume that it will be discussed subsequently with the Government. That particular statement by the Treasurer does raise some questions in my mind. I hope that when the legislation that the Treasurer has promised comes forward the Government will be very forthcoming, very frank and very clear about what it proposes under those particular provisions. Mr President, I am aware that there are some important speeches to be made in the very near future in this chamber and I therefore seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have received a letter from the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate relating to a change in the membership of Estimates Committee E. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Beahan be discharged from further attendance on Estimates Committee E and that Senator Foreman, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36ab, be appointed a member of Estimates Committee E. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —by leave-I present the twelfth report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax Assessment Bill 1987, the Sea Installations Bill 1987 and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987. I also lay on the table the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 13 dated 28 October 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed from 21 October, 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 thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator Patterson I remind honourable senators that this is her maiden speech, and I would ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(5.37) —For all of us in this chamber 14 September was a significant day. In the presence of our colleagues, our families, our close friends and the staff of the Senate, we made, some of us for the first time, an oath or an affirmation that we would be `faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law'. In this day and age, commitments such as wedding vows and legal contracts are by some so lightly entered into. I am sure that each of my colleagues in this chamber was aware of the enormity of the responsibility associated with the commitment we were making and the trust the people of Australia had placed in us-trust to conduct the business of the Senate to the best of our individual and corporate ability. Obviously 14 September had particular significance for each of us as individuals. First, for you, Mr President, it was the day when this House, in its wisdom, saw fit to re-elect you to the very high and responsible office of President of the Senate. I congratulate you, albeit somewhat belatedly. From my brief association with you I know that you will bring to this very important parliamentary appointment the wisdom and impartiality it requires. I also wish to congratulate my fellow Victorian, Senator Hamer, on his re-election as Deputy President. For me it was a memorable day. I wondered as I sat in the chamber what thoughts may have been passing through my father's mind as he watched the proceedings. I wondered whether he should be taking some of the credit for the privilege we had in having the right to be members of a democratic parliament. It was evident to me that the answer to that question was in the affirmative: he did deserve to take some of the credit. It was because of his and others' commitment to a cause and the sacrifices-and the supreme sacrifice in some cases-they made that we live in a free, democratic society. Before his twenty-first birthday he had served in the Second World War in the Middle East, New Guinea and Borneo. With the very little understanding I have of the things those young men and women experienced, I can only say, in the words of Vera Brittain-as our Vietnam veterans on the recent welcome home march may have said-`bygone battles like old sins cast long shadows'. I was reminded, too, on 14 September that-if I may be excused for using some poetic licence-bygone legislation, like old sins, can sometimes cast long shadows. The condolence motion for Sir Billy Snedden on that day should have reminded each of us of our own mortality and of the ephemeral nature of our existence-in particular, the fugacious tenure of the office we each hold here. But not so fleeting are the implications and at times unintended consequences of the decisions made in this and the other place. One of the great responsibilities with which we have been entrusted is not only to review current legislation, to ascertain its impact on individuals, our States and the Australian population as a whole; we need also to extend ourselves mentally in creative and lateral thought to ensure that our current legislation does not cast long unintended shadows. I must also admit that 14 September was not without an element of relief for me. It has been said that a week is a long time in politics. If that is the case, then the five weeks it took for the Victorian Senate count to be completed was an eternity. It was a long but worthwhile wait and I am sure that there were even some relieved senators on the other side when they were, so to speak, short changed on the results. I would like to digress for a moment and address the issue of the delay between the election and the declaration of the poll. Let me hasten to add that I have the utmost regard for the staff of the Commonwealth Electoral Commission. They could not have worked harder to facilitate the final result. Until 1974 there had been only two double dissolutions-in 1914 and 1951. Since then there have been four-in 1974, 1975, 1983 and 1987. There also appears to be a general trend towards an increase in the number of candidates, which results in a slowing down of the count. There were some changes, resulting from the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Act 1987, which attempted to reduce the delay in the count. These amounted to no more than Claytons' changes, as they had little impact on the lateness of the 1987 scrutiny. If we continue the vogue of double dissolutions and there continues to be an increase in the number of Senate candidates, it behoves the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Reform urgently to readdress this matter to put in place procedures which will accelerate the count. Mr President, as one of the last of the 17 of the class of '87 to make a maiden speech, I take this opportunity to compliment my new fellow senators on their maiden contributions to this chamber. I would also add my sincere thanks to you, Mr President; the Government Whip, Senator Jones; the Opposition Whip, Senator Reid; the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Cumming Thom; and the Senate staff for the planning and the effort which went into the orientation seminar which contributed so much to the initiation of the 17 novitiates. Of those 17 now slightly more experienced tyros, three are women. Senator Ryan, in her maiden speech in 1974, drew attention to the small number of women in the chamber. Of the 64 senators only six were women. Today, if she were present in the chamber, she would be able to take some solace in the fact that of the 76 senators 17 are women. As a senator for Victoria I follow a distinguished line of women senators-former Senator Marie Breen, former Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood and the recently retired former Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. It is the latter to whom I wish briefly to refer. While many in both Houses have ineffectually pranced across the political stage, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle executed her role with distinction, dedication and dignity, and by so doing earned the respect of members of both sides of the Parliament and the people of Victoria. It is appropriate and has been customary, although this custom has not always been observed, for a maiden speech to acknowledge those people and events which have influenced one throughout the years. I have been fortunate to have a supportive family through kinship and a caring, extended family through friendship. It would be improper for me, having made reference to my father earlier, not to acknowledge my mother. She lives in the United States of America, and would have been here this evening, but she was one of the victims of the increased demand on the trans-Pacific flights. It seems odd to me that, with the effort the Government has put into publicising Australia overseas, it did not anticipate the demand and approve increased flights earlier rather than closing the door after the horse has bolted. There are many who should be named on an occasion such as this but to do so would take too long, and in attempting to be brief but inclusive I may risk omission. There are those who know how they have helped me and there is no need to call the roll. There are those who have guided me spiritually and those who have given me prayerful support. There are those who have taught me. I particularly admire those who have executed that task honestly and, rather than try to inculcate me with their own particular view of the world, have impartially made me argue to the roots of my intellect. Would that all teachers were so honourable. There are those who, through their commitment to the community through voluntary organisations, have had a significant influence on my development. Today, when the work of volunteers is so often devalued, I wish to give testimony and pay tribute to one of the great youth organisations in this country and the world. Through this organisation I was challenged to develop my skills to their full potential, I was exposed to outstanding role models of women in a wide variety of professions and I had an experience which altered my life. I left school when I was 14 and was working in an office when, as a result of an international exchange to Mexico, I was inspired to go back to school and continue my education. All this and more have been the benefits I have derived from my 32 years of membership of an organisation which is sometimes, but inappropriately, the brunt of humour and ill-informed comment. The organisation to which I refer and to which I owe great personal debt is the Girl Guides Association of Australia. My acknowledgments would not be complete without reference to the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party of Australia, in particular, the women's section, which has given me so much support. In preselecting me I believe that the Party made a conscious decision to provide Victorians with a Liberal Senate team which had a balanced representation from various backgrounds. Social scientists are under-represented on this side of politics and my thesis regarding the reasons for this may be too provocative, given the guidelines for a maiden speech. Maybe I should expound upon that thesis at another time or in another forum. I believe that the Party selected me, despite the fact that I had not had a long history in it, because of my experience in higher education, health care training, youth affairs and gerontology-the study of aging. I thank the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party for the part it has played in enabling me to bring these skills to bear in the Senate. Senator Chapman in his maiden speech made reference to some of the recently retired senators, including former Senator Jessop. I am not sure that members of the public are really aware that we are incarcerated in Parliament House from morning until late at night when the House is sitting, and they may not realise how useful it must have been to have the optometrical skills of Senator Jessop, who fixed senators' and members' broken spectacles on the spot. I am not sure that my qualifications as a psychologist will be so useful. Despite the fact that there may be more of them than broken glasses, broken egos are not so easily repaired. Mr President, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, made a statement not long after the Budget was brought down with which I heartily concur. I am not sure that we will often be in agreement but on this occasion we were. On 19 September in Perth he warned that Australia was not out of trouble and said that he was worried that the Budget may have been oversold and that this may make the public complacent. He indicated just how fragile the Australian economy is and that, given another commodity price slide, Australia may find the International Monetary Fund knocking on the door again. I believe that he is right. By whatever test one uses, Australians cannot afford to be complacent. Let me take just three tests: first, the test of comparing Australia's performance against that of other countries; secondly, the test of comparing our national financial situation now with that of 1983; and, thirdly, the test of a comparison of family living standards with those of five years ago. In applying the first test, a comparison of performance with those of other countries, let me take a group of countries-the United States of America, Japan, Canada, West Germany, France and the United Kingdom. How do we fare? The answer is poorly. We are at the bottom of the class on economic growth and we are, unfortunately, at the top of the class with the highest current account deficit as a percentage of gross national product, the highest inflation and the highest interest rates. How do we fare when we apply the second test-a comparison of our financial situations now and in 1983? Again we fail dismally. Home loan interest rates have risen, credit card and personal loan interest rates have risen, our current account deficit has doubled and our gross foreign debt-that is, the total amount owed to foreigners-has increased three-fold from June 1983 when it was $36 billion to $109 billion at the end of August this year. The third test is family living standards, and there is little need to bore honourable senators with statistics. People have only to take something from their kitchen cupboard which they bought six months ago to see how prices have increased. Interest rates on home loans have increased, our Medicare levy has increased and the price of purchasing and running a car has gone through the roof. Almost everyone here runs a budget. The thing that is most likely to keep us awake at night tossing and turning, other than concern for a loved one or concern about a personal relationship, is surely to be financial in nature. Our bankcard is overdrawn-and given the recent statistics showing the national personal loan and credit card debt at $23 billion, unfortunately there will be many in this category-a few more unexpected bills come in and there is not enough money to meet all of our commitments. Let me say this: if people toss and turn when their personal finances are in a mess, then, given Australia's indebtedness and the slippery slope we are on, we should have a nation of insomniacs. The other day I was clearing out some books and happened to come across an old economics text from my matriculation year. I am not quite sure how the teacher coped with having David Hill of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and me in the same class but she managed. I was flicking through the old text and was interested to note that in 1956 Australia's balance of payments was favourable to the tune of #233m. In 1956 the first of the baby boom was just going to high school. We were a feted generation and I would remind my fellow baby boom colleagues that we grew up under a Liberal government. The world was our oyster, not so for those making the transition from primary to high school today-the economic climate in which they are growing up is anything but rosy. Not only is the nation looking down the barrel at the risk of bankruptcy, but individual debt is at an all time high and personal bankruptcy is on the increase. There is to boot unprecedented moral bankruptcy at all levels of our society and no group-parliamentarians, police, public servants-is exempt. While I have my palette and brush poised, let me continue to elaborate upon this not so rosy picture. Our once well health care system is now itself in need of treatment. It has multiple diseases and symptoms, waiting lists, demoralised staff and acute hospital beds filled with nursing home patients who should, but cannot be accommodated in nursing homes. If honourable senators can bear with me a little longer, I will add a few more strokes to make the picture a little clearer. Our education system is also suffering. As the recently retired chairman of a large academic department at the Lincoln Institute of Health Sciences and a member of Monash University Council, I can speak with some authority on the university and college sector. There are many areas of concern but I will illuminate only one or two. Much of the complex and specialised equipment-electron microscopes, computer equipment and so on-used in tertiary institutions is imported. The drop in the Australian dollar has put the purchase of such equipment out of the reach of many departments and researchers. The equipment on which our medicos, engineers, architects, chemists, physicists and computer scientists are being trained is rapidly becoming obsolete. Our libraries are suffering, too. Libraries are the heart and infrastructure of a tertiary institution. The blood supply to them is dwindling as the soaring costs, again mostly due to the decrease in the Australian dollar, of essential journals and books has meant that librarians have been forced to cancel subscriptions. If we let our libraries run down, not only will we reduce Australia's capacity to initiate research and development now, but also the legacy of depleted libraries will linger well into the future. Currently our universities are suffering a brain drain of both post-graduate students and staff. Academics are being lured by higher salaries and better conditions overseas or into the public and private sector in Australia. If Australia is to get in front again, we need the best young minds in Australia being taught by the best, most highly motivated, teachers and researchers. Mediocrity will not see us achieve our place as a competitor in the markets of the world, nor producing the professionals with the training required to deal with the complex social, moral and philosophical issues produced by electronic, technological and biomedical developments. The training of philosophers, social scientists and others in the humanities should not be neglected, either, in the current push for education to be relevant. To continue my analogy of painting a picture, I remind honourable senators that Rembrandt did a series of self-portraits which demonstrated very clearly the aging processes. As a psychologist with a particular interest in gerontology-the study of aging-I wish to paint the portrait of aging Australia. In the past 80 years the aged population has grown from 4 per cent of the total population to 10.6 per cent, and the prediction for 2021 is at least 15 per cent. There are differences in the rates of increase within the older population. In the 1980s and 1990s the fastest rate of growth is, and will be, amongst the oldest groups. The impact of these demographic changes places greater strain on the already stretched services and facilities for the old. The baby boom is currently going through its corporate mid-life crisis, and this may explain the pressure on superannuation issues. The baby boom will contribute, in the first decade of next century, to faster increases in the numbers of the `young aged'. Despite the increase in the young aged almost a quarter of the older population will be over 80, and 75 per cent of these will be women. This is one of the very important social issues facing Australia and it also has profound economic implications. I was concerned that the Government, through the speech delivered by His Excellency on opening the Thirty-fifth Parliament, barely touched upon the issue of aging-except maybe in reference to the Government's `objective of restoring parity between the single adult pension and benefit rates' and references to reforms of residential care for aged people. The final touch to my picture should be light because it is about youth, but I am compelled to continue painting with dark colours. Our youth, the target of the much heralded but now somewhat bedraggled Priority One program, have not featured in the Government's outline of its plans for the life of this Parliament. There is reference to the apprenticeship system as a major source of employment and training opportunity for young people, and I suppose there is indirect reference to youth, although not explicitly stated, in the promise of the continuation of the national campaign against drug use and the commitment to public housing to alleviate homelessness. In the Government's plans for the life of this Parliament, Aboriginals, women and immigration and ethnic affairs each command a separate section with a heading-not so youth and old age-and here I rest my case, or should I say my brush. No, Australians cannot afford to be complacent-we should be vitally concerned about our national debt, our individual personal debt, the level of corruption and crime in our society and the plethora of social issues which confront us. Today's Sydney Morning Herald highlights Australia's particular vulnerability in the current situation of declining share markets because `it is a commodity producer and is deeply in debt'. I repeat: we cannot afford to be complacent. I believe that Australia needs to be revived-not reconstructed by external forces such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions and government, but revived through each individual Australian being encouraged to do his or her best to work to make Australia more productive and competitive. We should seek this revival through relieving individuals and small business from excessive interference by government and bureaucracy; restoring government spending to affordable levels; reducing taxes to rekindle incentive; reviewing restrictive work practices; recapturing and capturing export markets through innovation, improved quality and reliable delivery; rewarding, not penalising, effort and excellence; recognising the significant contribution of volunteers in our society; and restoring a system where those in genuine need, and not others, are the beneficiaries of social welfare. Mr President, I expressed my appreciation to various groups and people earlier, but the ultimate expression of gratitude must be to the people of Victoria whom I have the great honour of representing. I hope that the trust they have shown in electing me will be justified by my service to them and my performance in this chamber and in the various committees of this Parliament. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator Wood, I remind honourable senators that this is his maiden speech and I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(5.58) —Thank you, Mr President. I am delighted to follow Senator Patterson, from Victoria, because we share the same concerns for justice and especially young people. I am sure that our concern for youth is something that we will share during the life of this Parliament. I would especially like to thank you, Mr President, the staff of the Senate and other senators who have been very good to an innocent in the Senate-someone who is not used to this sort of environment. The passage through my early weeks here has been made much easier by the friendliness shown by other senators from all sides of the Senate, and especially by the Senate staff. I am amazed to find a place where people still value and are proud of their work and always seek to do an excellent job. I also thank my family, my friends and my comrades in the peace movement. I will not go through the roll, as Senator Patterson describes it, because there are too many of them and they know who they are, so I thank them now. As the sole representative of the Nuclear Disarmament Party in this place I follow in the footsteps of Senator Vallentine, who has paved the way and has made my transition to the Senate much easier. I give a special thank you and a special mention to Senator Vallentine for her help and congratulate her on paving the way. The Nuclear Disarmament Party (NDP) is proud of its success in the last election but it also has great responsibility now because its mandate came from right across the political spectrum. While our primary vote totalled about 50,000, we received another quarter of a million votes from preferences. The lesson we learnt from that is that, although people were concerned to vote for a party that appeared to be concerned with a whole range of issues, nuclear disarmament was still very high on their agenda. After they had made their vote for their first party of preference, the Nuclear Disarmament Party figured pretty close to the top in just about everybody's thinking. I need to explain the broader links between nuclear disarmament and other issues. We tried to do this during the election campaign, but the media were fairly preoccupied with the Bob and John show. All the issues in the election campaign seemed to have been subsumed into what effect this or that issue would have on the relative standings of either Mr Hawke or Mr Howard. So the smaller parties and the independents did not get much of a show during the election campaign, but in the campaign we tried to show the broader links between nuclear disarmament and all the other critical issues of our time. Nuclear disarmament is not an issue like the Daintree or this issue or that issue which one puts together in a sack like so many potatoes. The nuclear arms race is a dynamic process. It includes a whole range of issues. The very existence, the production, the deployment and the maintenance of a nuclear warfare strategy rests on vast concentrations of power and of wealth. The vast concentrations of wealth that are necessary to supply and build the arms are made through the exploitation of the environment. I do not need to go through the whole list of environmental destruction around the world, the places where vast concentrations of capital are destroying the environment in the name of profit. These vast concentrations of wealth rest on the exploitation of workers around the world-not just workers in the Third World, but workers in all countries whose needs and just demands have to go out the window in the name of profit. I shed very few tears over the stock market crash in the last few weeks. We hear a great deal about free enterprise, a free market, and how the market needs to be left to do its own thing. Yet as soon as there is the slightest hiccup in the stock market, as soon as shares start to fall and as soon as people have to start selling their Porsches, there is a demand for government to intervene, for government to do something. Well, is it or is it not a free market? It seems to me that the goal is profit and that these profits are used to maintain the arms race. These vast concentrations of wealth which exploit the environment and exploit workers maintain poverty in the Third World and in this country. The other day I went through the new Parliament House on the hill. That building has cost $1.1 billion, which represents a lot of homes in the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Then there are the vast concentrations of power around the world. Look at the places around the world where people struggle for self-determination, for sovereignty. One can reel them off-Nicaragua, Eritrea, Belau, Fiji. Everywhere people are struggling for self-determination, the right to rule their own country, the right to have a say in their own affairs and to govern their own affairs. Everywhere where people are struggling against political oppression, they are struggling against global super-power interests. The concentration of power around the world rests also on patriarchy. The military and hierarchical systems around the world which keep people oppressed require a patriarchal system. So we are denying sovereignty not just to peoples in general, but to women in particular, who produce most of the world's food and who care for most of the world's children. Those women are denied their say in how the world is run, in the interests of patriarchy and maintaining control on a global level. Let us look at the South Pacific, and nearer to our north. How long will Mrs Aquino last now that the Philippines is moving towards the abolition of United States bases from the Philippines? My guess is that very soon we shall see in the Philippines a coup which brings to power a right wing military junta which will secure the bases for the United States. Let us look also at Belau, a tiny little island in a very strategic position which has been bullied and hounded into having vote after vote to maintain its nuclear free constitution. It is being forced, through economic pressure and bullying by the United States, to enter into a compact with the United States. I notice that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is talking about a compact with the Aboriginal people. I hope that he is talking about a different process and a different sort of compact than the United States wants to foist on Belau. In French Polynesia, about which Senator Schacht has been speaking in this place in the last few days, and in New Caledonia the French use intimidation, bullying and violence to maintain control over their populations. Then there is the sad story of Fiji, with a rising military junta in what was once the friendliest place in the Pacific. The evidence is not in yet, but I am sure that in the coming years the evidence will emerge, just as it did on Chile. I ask honourable senators to learn the lesson of Chile. If we need proof of the way in which the United States maintains its sovereignty in the world, we have an object lesson in Chile; the evidence is irrefutable and undeniable. The United States planned carefully and over a period to destabilise and overthrow a democratically elected government in Chile. So it was no surprise to me that, with the combination of French attempts to militarise Fiji and United States attempts to militarise Fiji, as soon as Bavadra was elected and was moving towards an independent foreign policy for Fiji, towards an anti-nuclear policy, within weeks he was deposed. The military junta there is developing at a rapid rate, which reminds one of Chile and other places. The question of sovereignty also goes to the heart of Australian sovereignty. Until we understand our need for sovereignty; until we understand the issue of sovereignty in our own affairs; until we understand how we are not a sovereign nation-that we are an unofficial extra State of the United States of America, that our foreign policy is subject to American foreign policy and that our economic policy is subject to US economic policy-we will not understand sovereignty and we will not understand our denial of sovereignty to the Aboriginal people. I need to spend some time talking about the Aboriginal people and sovereignty. We need to understand our original aggression in this country. When non-Aboriginal people first arrived in this country they brought smallpox with them in little bottles-or whatever it was in which it was carried. Within a year of the settlement of this country, in a period of two months, half the Aboriginal population between the Hawkesbury and Botany Bay died of smallpox. That was between April and May of 1789. There is a debate raging as to whether Noel Butlin's estimates of Aboriginal deaths are accurate and whether the smallpox was introduced deliberately or released accidentally. It seems to me that it does not really matter, in one sense, whether it was deliberate or accidental because half of the Aboriginal population died anyway. There is plenty of proof around to show how smallpox was used deliberately in North America and elsewhere to eliminate indigenous populations. Once the smallpox did its job there were other diseases. These were followed by the gun. It was only in the 1920s that the last hunting parties stopped hunting Aboriginal people. It was in this century-within living memory-that Aboriginal children were dragged away from their parents and sent to boarding schools, to turn them into servants for the wealthy. We have replaced the gun and disease with legislation and regulation. Legislation and regulation have taken over from war. I would like to quote Warren Snowdon, the honourable member for the Northern Territory, in his first speech in the other place. I might also mention Warren Snowdon's recent bereavement and offer my sympathy to him and his family. In his first address to the other place Warren Snowdon pointed out that the unemployment rate of Aboriginal people is six times the national rate. On average, an Aboriginal person earns only half the income of other Australians. Aboriginal life expectancy at birth is 20 years less than that for other Australians. The Aboriginal child mortality rate is three times higher than the national rate. Up to 36 per cent of Aboriginal children under 10 years of age in some areas suffer from trachoma, compared with 1.6 per cent of non-Aboriginal children. Many Aboriginal families live in substandard housing or temporary shelter. The imprisonment rate for Aborigines is over 20 times that for the total Australian population. The honourable member went on to point out that these shameful statistics mirror the lot of colonised peoples in the Third World. But there are two glimmers of hope. When we look at the sad and sorry history of our treatment of the Aboriginal people, there are two things that come through. One is that the Aboriginal people have never surrendered their sovereignty-they have never stopped the struggle for their sovereignty. The struggle for sovereignty by the Aboriginal people has been going on for nearly 200 years and will continue until they achieve justice. It is a small hint of pride perhaps for some people that, since settlement, there have always been figures in our history, often fairly lonely and isolated, who, from a non-Aboriginal perspective, have pointed to the cruelties and injustice to the Aboriginal people. Non-Aboriginal support for justice for Aboriginal people is not an invention of the current generation. It is a long-standing tradition, albeit within a small section of the community. On the question of Australian sovereignty-and here we get down to tin tacks-we need to liberate our own country, to win our own sovereignty, by closing foreign bases in this country. These foreign bases are symbolic of the fact that we do not defend ourselves; we defend a foreign country. The whole debacle over Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, in which we have privatised coastal surveillance, shows that we are not even able to guard and watch our own borders-our own coastline-yet we have sophisticated bases in this country from which we can spy on our neighbours and on Europe and which have the means of launching the first strike anywhere on the globe. Yet we have to contract out our coastal surveillance to private enterprise. Perhaps we could contract out the naval functions to the Royal Sydney Motor Yacht Club at some stage. I now refer to the demonstrations at Pine Gap and at Richmond. Six hundred people demonstrated at Richmond to object to foreign bases on our soil. These people signed a petition which we wanted to present to the commander of the Richmond Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base but no one at the base would accept it. Therefore, I seek leave to table the document entitled `Statement of Concern' relating to the Richmond RAAF base. Leave granted. Senator WOOD —I also seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- STATEMENT OF CONCERN October 18, 1987 We, the undersigned citizens of New South Wales, express our opposition to the presence of the US Airforce Military Air Command in Richmond RAAF Base. We strongly object to the US Starlifter Aircraft using Richmond RAAF Base to ferry supplies to US Bases at Pine Gap, North West Cape and Nurrungar. These US Bases endanger the security of Australia and implicate us in preparations for nuclear war which threatens the entire planet. We call for the closure of these bases. We petition the Richmond RAAF Command to convey to the Federal Government our opposition to this US military presence in Australia. (Signed by 600 citizens) Senator WOOD —After we have removed foreign bases from Australian soil, we also need to look at the question of removing foreign nuclear armed and nuclear powered warships from our waters. I belong to a group called Paddlers for Peace. When nuclear armed warships come into Sydney Harbour we go out in kayaks and protest against the presence of nuclear weapons in our harbours. Those death ships remind me of the First Fleet-with its little glass cylinders of death which killed off half the Aboriginal population. They are, in a way, analogous to the cylinders of deaths on these current warships. Whether by accident or design, half the population-at least-between here and the Hawkesbury would die. The other thing we need to do in this country is to end the mining and export of uranium. Uranium fuels the arms race and we need to stop the trade in death. In our quest for sovereignty as a nation we perhaps can learn a great deal from the Aboriginal people about cultural identity and cultural autonomy in the face of great persecution and oppression. Today is International Children's Day. It is an appropriate day on which to talk about the alienation of youth. In my other life, before I came to this place, I was a youth worker. The scene for young people in this country is a pretty sad one. I cannot get out of my mind pictures of young people who have died in alleyways, in public toilets, in the depths of seedy bars-real people whom I knew. Homelessness among young people is of great concern. The sorts of shelters they use are on the beach of Manly, underneath the skateboard rink and in stormwater tunnels-today, in 1987. These young people are homeless and alienated. Yet soon we will be moving into a $1.1 billion mansion up on the hill where, some honourable senators have complained, the seating and desks in the new Senate chamber are of a lesser quality than those we enjoy currently. Before I came into the chamber I was handed a message which said that the Nuclear Disarmament Party's flag is flying from a base camp in the Himalayas. Two young members of an Australian ascent, on the third highest mountain in the world, have symbolised the NDP's highest aspirations for a nuclear-free future for everyone. The young people of this country are the most informed and aware generation this country has ever seen. When I go around the place and talk to young people I find the depth of their knowledge and understanding remarkable. Yet at every stage young people are subject to relentless supervision, constant criticism and alienation from the processes which control their lives. It is about time young people were invited back into the fold. I would like to use the analogy of a log-jam to explain why my concern for all of these issues of social justice is subsumed in the nuclear disarmament issue. In the countries where there are big rivers and their logs are transported by being thrown into the river and by being sent down the river, there are very often log-jams. There are massive pile-ups of logs. The way to remove a log-jam is to find the key log. Usually one log is the first to get caught. By various means the key log is released and the log-jam sorts itself out. That is the case with nuclear disarmament. All the other issues of sovereignty, injustice, exploitation and oppression will never be addressed while we maintain a global nuclear war fighting capability. While ever there are nuclear weapons there will need to be the political oppression and economic exploitation necessary to produce them and maintain them. I have a vision for the Bicentennial. I see the Bicentennial as a time when, rather than celebrate a manufactured history put together in some public relations sweat shop and sold to us the way they sell margarine and jeans, there should be a true reappraisal of Australian history so that we can move on from there. The year 1988 can be the time when we reclaim our sovereignty and get rid of the bases, give Aboriginal people back their sovereignty and enter into a partnership with them to care for this continent, to welcome young people back into our society, to protect, maintain and begin to heal the environment that we have destroyed and, perhaps, to implement the sort of sustainable economy outlined by Senator Coulter. I close by using a phrase from the greens. I am indebted to the greens-the Nuclear Disarmament Party is indebted to the greens-who have shown the way in Germany and whose `green' thinking has been an inspiration to me. The Nuclear Disarmament Party seeks to preserve and promote liberty and to defend and renew the ecology through the means of nuclear disarmament. The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Calvert I remind honourable senators that it is his maiden speech. I ask that he be extended the usual courtesy. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(6.26) —As one of the many new senators elected to the Senate who are taking the opportunity of speaking for the first time-I am the last senator to do so-it is with some relief that finally I get a chance to congratulate you, Mr President, on your election. My congratulations also go to Senator Hamer on his election as Deputy President. I also congratulate the two previous speakers, Senator Patterson and Senator Wood, on their very sincere and different maiden speeches. My congratulations go to all the new senators. I know that they will represent their States with honour and with pride. Honour and pride are very widely used terms, but on this occasion I say that it is an honour to serve in this place. I am very proud to represent my State and the people in it. I hope that I can be worthy of the support given to me by the Liberal Party of Australia and its officers and supporters in Tasmania, my small but enthusiastic band of workers who helped me and, most importantly, my wife and family who have been so understanding and patient. There is no doubt, as other senators have said, that the support of one's wife and family is so important. I appreciate them very much. Therefore, I take this opportunity of expressing publicly my gratitude to my wife Jill and to my children, Anna, Kate, Belinda and William. The help and courtesy shown by my colleagues and the wonderful assistance given by all the worthy officers who have served the Senate so unselfishly and well have made the task at hand so much easier. For those honourable senators who may be curious as to my background I will give a brief resume. Surprisingly enough, my background is very similar to the backgrounds of other senators, on both sides of the chamber, who have rural backgrounds and who have been influenced by local government. After leaving school I worked for my father and his partner on a mixed farm, principally engaged in orcharding. And being a true blue Tasmanian like my colleague in the other place, I can truthfully say that I have had first-hand experience with apples. Due to the rationalisation of the industry I felt that it was time to move on and so became a wool grower. My wife and I purchased a property close to Hobart where, for many years, we have experienced the many vagaries of rural living. My interest in agriculture led me to become involved initially in rural youth and then with our local farming organisation. I have also had an active interest in the Royal Agricultural Society of Tasmania, currently having the honour of being its President and part time lion tamer. As some honourable senators may have experienced, frustration with government at various levels can galvanise one into action. Some 12 years ago, when I was president of our local farming organisation and experiencing problems with our local council, I found that the best way to beat them was to join them. It was during this time in local government that I began to gain considerable satisfaction from being able to help one's fellow human beings and being able to witness the satisfying results of such efforts. During my term as Warden-let me explain for those who may not understand our sometimes quaint Tasmanian terms that my municipality was not a gaol, nor a church or a game reserve, but an area covering some 254 square kilometres and containing 48,000 people-I performed a similar role to that of mayor or shire president in some of our mainland centres. My home, the municipality of Clarence, is a thriving, mainly residential suburb of Hobart that is developing an industrial base and has many beaches. Clarence possesses much natural beauty and is an area that I hope will become a city in the not too distant future. As an example of its recent development, Clarence now contains the Hobart International Airport and the headquarters for cricket in Tasmania and is the proud home of two honourable senators and one member of the House of Representatives, which further confirms the desirable lifestyle advantage which Clarence enjoys. As previously stated, being warden of a thriving municipality is not just so much hard work, but is an excellent opportunity to serve. It is for that reason that I come to this place: to serve-to serve the Senate and to represent my electors of Tasmania in the very best way I can. Mr President, make no mistake: I am a very proud Tasmanian. I am well aware of those very eminent senators from my State who have represented us from all sides of politics with such distinction and loyalty. In particular, I refer to my predecessor, Michael Townley, who represented my State so well for 17 years and whose contribution will be missed by many in this chamber. It is appropriate that I thank him on behalf of all Tasmanians and I wish him well in his chosen future. I am also aware of how diligently all Tasmanian representatives have had to work to protect and assist our rather isolated island. Unfortunately, we seem to be forgotten at times and, with great shame, there have even been instances when Tasmania has been left off the map. But you can be assured, Mr President, that I, along with my colleagues in the Liberal Party of Australia, will let this Government know where Tasmania is and we will fight for our rights at all times. Tasmania has a physical barrier which has created and will continue to create constraints on economic development and tourism. I refer, of course, to Bass Strait, that great stretch of often unforgiving sea which divides us from our fellow States. There are some who would say that it is an advantage as it keeps the invaders from the big island at bay and also that it allows us to maintain a lifestyle that is not interfered with to any great degree. But, if we are to continue the vital economic development of my State, the numerous problems of Bass Strait must be faced, particularly with the effects that severe cutbacks from the current Federal Government have had on our economy. Because of our small industrial and population base compared with the larger States, our economy is a fragile one. Every cutback in financial government support affects us severely, whereas in the larger States the effect is not so great. The current funding cuts of some $270m, and the constraints put upon our Premier to achieve a balanced Budget, have placed severe hardship on many of my fellow Tasmanians. For example, to drive around our State and see petrol at up to 67c per litre, to have the dubious privilege of having the most expensive cigarettes in Australia and to see pockets of unemployment of 40 per cent in some areas is of great concern to me. As chairman of a community youth support scheme for some five years, I am well aware of the lack of purpose and the loss of pride that unemployment brings to all people, particularly the young. I have heard Tasmania referred to in this place very recently as a mendicant State. But, as the second oldest State of this Commonwealth, it has always played a vital role, beginning in the early 1800s, when Tasmania supplied grain to the starving colony of New South Wales. No doubt, if the occasion arose, we would do it again. I am not asking for handouts but make the point that we in Tasmania have unique problems which require special consideration by those in government. I sincerely hope that our nation's decision-makers will continue to support freight equalisation, as other governments have, which has at least enabled us in part to compete on a fairer basis with the rest of Australia and which is so vital to safeguard the employment of so many Tasmanians. Let me explain to the Senate a number of innovative ways in which Tasmania, because of its enforced independence, is encouraging Tasmanians to develop new techniques for old industries and also new ventures of an exciting nature which will boost our local economy and provide the catalyst for further economic growth. Tasmania is a most beautiful island, and it is not surprising that much of the impetus for this development is coming from the rich resources which abound in the waters of our coastline. Abalone is a large export earner for Tasmania and this popular fish, particularly in Japan, is a valuable $50m a year industry which is constantly being monitored, with restrictions on catches and licences, to ensure this resource is maintained. Tasmanians have learned from the scallop industry, where the over-exploitation of beds, the use of unsuitable dredges and the intrusion of outside fishermen has meant the decimation of a once very lucrative industry. Recent investigations by scientists from the Division of Fisheries Research in Tasmania of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) have resulted in minimal numbers of small scallops being found during monthly cruises of the Bass Strait area. This confirms industry expectations that the 1987 season is likely to be a poor one. The CSIRO has been involved in scallop research in Bass Strait since mid-1985 and its efforts in providing scientific assistance to aid in the management of this industry are to be commended. Hopefully, the efforts of the Government and the fishermen, along with the reseeding of the beds, will help this industry to recover. There are currently two leases being used to experiment with the farming of scallops, as occurs in Japan, and, hopefully, these will be successful. Significant advances have been made in trawling and long-lining. Just recently a new $2m fish processing plant was opened at Beauty Point near Launceston. This complements the large fish meal plant at Triabunna, which takes advantage of the large catches of jack mackerel. Another significant plant is planned for the Huon Valley. But it is the relatively new and regenerating fish farming industry that I believe has a great future for Tasmania. For example, we have developed a very lucrative oyster industry in a relatively short time. Last year we had 72 oyster leases, which produced some 700,000 dozen oysters worth $2m. This industry has developed because of the initiatives and determination of a few dedicated oyster farmers, with the assistance of State and Commonwealth authorities. Because of the abundance of natural food, pollution-free waters and vast areas of sheltered waterways, this industry has an assured future. Tasmanian oysters have gained wide recognition for quality and are earning important export dollars for Australia. I am sure most oyster eaters in this place have had the delight of eating oysters from Tasmania in our dining room. Development of the salt-water salmonid farming industry in Tasmania is perhaps the most exciting new industry seen in the State for some years. It represents the high point of 12 years of applied aquaculture research into shellfish and finfish by both government and private industry interests, and will place Tasmania at the forefront in the production of Australian gourmet seafoods. Between 1984 and the 1990s the sea-water cultivation of rainbow trout on five farms will produce some 2,500 tonnes of fish per annum. It is also confidently predicted that the farming of Atlantic salmon will produce 3,000 tonnes per annum by 1989-90. The marine salmonid industry envisages employing 400 people full time by 1990, with a value of $75m to the economy. This will be almost equal to the whole of the fishing industry in our State at present. Other lucrative fish farming enterprises include the mussel industry, which is currently using 21 leases around the State, and a very new export industry using local and Japanese expertise-the harvesting and culture of sea urchins. By international standards, individually these industries do not appear very significant but, collectively, some 140 leases employing hundreds of people and with an earning potential of many millions of dollars give us a great deal of encouragement for the future. With relatively pollution-free waters we have unlimited potential. I noted yesterday that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who represents the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy in the Senate, incorporated in Hansard a second reading speech about fisheries which states: Exports of fishery products have increased from $230m in 1980-81 to an estimated $591m in 1986-87 and have significantly exceeded the value of imports each year during that period. It went on to state: Estimated annual per capita consumption has risen from 6.2 kilograms in 1979-80 to 7.5 kilograms in 1984-85, measured as edible weight. These figures give a general picture of a vigorous fishing industry which is making a very important contribution to the domestic economy and food supplies as well as to foreign exchange earnings. It does seem that in a very short time Tasmanian fisheries will be earning a great part of that amount. A concern that I have about our new aquaculture industry is the possibility of conflict between uninformed pressure groups and the industry as a whole. Because of the perceived intrusion of some of these leases into areas which have been seen by some to be traditional recreation and wildlife areas, there is always the risk that individuals or groups will protest in the name of conservation. It was pleasing to note a few days ago that the Tasmanian Government placed a freeze on new leases for 12 months to allow an assessment of the effect that this new industry is having on our environment. It is another example of the Tasmanian Government's rational approach to conservation. The emerging aquaculture industry, or any other new industry, can ill-afford the interference experienced by our traditional industries over the last few years. There are groups of people in our community who have influenced the environmental issues of our State in a very responsible way. Certainly the efforts of most of our major industries to accede to the concerns of these people have had favourable acceptance. On the other hand, pressure groups and individuals purporting to be helping the State have caused disruption and divisiveness that has been highlighted by the media from time to time. It is appropriate just to pay tribute to the authorities and individuals within Tasmania who are making such a significant contribution to the scientific, economic and technical research which is so vital to the provision of sound fisheries management practices. Such work is not only assisting in the development of new fisheries and fishing methods but also providing previously unavailable information and training. As examples of Tasmania's involvement I am aware that, through the Fisheries Industries Research Trust Account, the Department of Sea Fisheries is to receive $170,000 to conduct an assessment of orange roughy resources off the coast of Tasmania. The Department of Agricultural Science of the University of Tasmania is to receive $30,500 to study the effects of environmental factors on microbial growth in prepared seafood products and the prediction on shelf-life safety and the CSIRO is to receive $53,500 to provide a technical consultancy service for the Australian seafood industry. These studies are to be augmented by Tasmanian-based studies on bluefin tuna, sea urchins and the aging of marine mammals. Tasmania, in its drive for financial independence, has not confined development to aquaculture. The wool industry remains prominent and, more recently, angora wool has been making its mark on world markets. Tasmanian cheeses, produced on the north-west coast and King Island, have also won international acclaim for excellent quality. One of Tasmania's newest industries, essential oils, which include lavender, peppermint, fennel and parsley, is expected to be worth more than $700,000 to Tasmanians this year. In the future, when operating at full capacity, this industry is expected to realise more than $6m per annum. Industries are being encouraged to move their operations to Tasmania. Recently, construction began on a frozen food plant at Burnie, which is expected to employ more than 100 people on Tasmania's north-west coast. Smaller industries are also thriving with Tasmanian wines, produced at vineyards in the east and north-east, being sold at premium prices. I believe that they have been sold at premium prices on the mainland as well. The year 1986-87 saw Tasmania's exports exceed $1 billion for the first time and that has confirmed Tasmania's reputation as the most export conscious State. I am proud to say that, on a per capita basis, Tasmanians export goods worth 20 per cent more than the national average. Export earnings per capita for private sector employed persons in Tasmania amount to $8,238 compared with $6,762 for mainland Australia, clearly highlighting Tasmania's disproportionate contribution to Australia's export earnings. Tasmania is constantly striving to pay its way in our Commonwealth. It is a very hard-working State and I am pleased to be able to give my fellow senators an outline of some of the current developments in my State. I would like to assure all present here tonight that I will be using my position to protect Tasmania's interests and its people. Just today I took note of an article in our local paper about the first review to be conducted since Sir Bede Callaghan's 1977 report on the structure of industry and employment in our State. The report states: The review also predicted a startling 3.4 per cent increase in economic growth between now and 1990 . . . The report goes on: The economic growth figures are sure to be hotly contested, with CREA estimating a 3.4 per cent increase in annual gross domestic product. Only Queensland and Tasmania exceed the 2.8 per cent growth rate forecast for the entire country. It is rather interesting to note that the two non-Labor States are predicted to produce far in excess of the other States. I come now to a subject which I have experienced at first hand for the past 12 years. I refer to local government. Local government is a resource in our nation that is being underutilised, particularly in the field of community services. Nationally, local government spends in excess of $1 billion annually on the provision of human services, which represents one-quarter of its expenditure. The creation of separate departments for human services has expanded the professionalism of its role. Local government acts as a catalyst for mobilising the community and its services. It provides the resources whereby a community is able to provide much needed services, be it through the provision of land, access to equipment or administrative support. It provides developmental assistance and, importantly, it provides a planning framework to assist in bringing together providers within the local government area. These are roles which cannot be underestimated and I believe that, in many cases, local government has the ability to be able to deal with urgent social problems without the large bureaucracy which so often gobbles up so much of the funds made available. With local government supervising the allocation of funds and providing the necessary expertise, more money would be available on the ground. For too long the man and woman in the street have been controlled from Canberra in matters that could so effectively be handled at a local level. I see the expansion of local government in the area of community services as being just another practical step in assisting the real needs of people in areas such as the elderly, youth unemployment, child care and recreation. The capacity for local government to become involved in these areas and take on programs has, to some extent, been hamstrung by the fear of being left to carry the baby if State and Federal funds are reduced or withdrawn. I see a need, therefore, to monitor policy development, resource allocation and program administration to ensure that local government can expand its role. Further, a consistent financial approach is required to ensure that local government is equipped with the necessary funding to enable it to operate effectively in the human services area. We must be prepared to lessen central control with a view to fostering community development. This will enable local government to take an active role in general community services and develop its responsibilities as the third sphere of government. In conclusion, we as a Senate will be facing many challenges during the life of the Parliament and beyond. Not the least of these will be attempts to transform the role of this House as a House of review to an insignificant rubber stamp for the government of the day. The people of Australia have much to thank the Senate for, as was recently shown with the identity card legislation. I pledge myself to upholding the traditions of this most honoured place and fighting to retain the very important position the Senate holds in the parliamentary system of Australia. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(6.51) —I move: That the following words be added to the Address-in-Reply: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government's declaration in the Governor-General's Opening Speech that it will seek to further Australia's ANZUS alliance with the United States- (a) is inconsistent with its stated aim in the same speech of working towards arms control and disarmament measures, and (b) is not in the best interests of the Australian people in that it does not promote an independent foreign policy free of alliances with any powers in possession of nuclear weapons''. I intend to speak briefly to the amendment. I believe that an alliance with the United States of America is an immoral millstone around our collective necks. It is time that Australia sought an independent stand, free of encumbrance with a nuclear nation. As we approach the somewhat embarrassing bicentenary of European settlement in this country, I think it is an appropriate time to reflect on the future direction of this country. What kind of foreign policy do we intend this country to have? What kind of country do we intend to leave to our children and to their children? We must think not only of the past, as we address the issue of the bicentenary. We are part of the past, but we are also part of the future. I think we have a moral obligation to think of the future and of what kind of country we want this to be in the next 200 years, should we be lucky enough to be around for that sort of time. We need to look at the ANZUS Treaty alliance as it was when it was formulated in 1951. I can understand some support for the alliance when it was formulated in that time, but it is irrelevant now, it is outmoded now and it is dangerous now-for Australia and for the world. It is very different now in its operation from its intended status in 1951. It was very loosely worded, on purpose in my opinion, by the United States because it did not want to tie itself into having to defend Australian interests in this part of the world. What it has become since 1951 has evolved by a whole series of secret agreements worked out between the Australian Government and the United States Government. The original document, which fits on to one A4 sheet of paper, never mentioned anything about foreign bases on Australian soil and never mentioned any obligation to host the visits of nuclear armed and nuclear powered warships to our ports. Those things have all emerged and are very different from the Treaty formulated in 1951. In 1951, when the Treaty was signed, it was part of a tripartite series of agreements that the United States formed with Japan, with the Philippines and with Australia and New Zealand. So in that time the United States very effectively shored up its interests in the western Pacific. All that the ANZUS Treaty commits the alliance partners to is a meeting once a year. It was the United States which in 1985 reneged on its agreement by refusing to meet with one of its alliance partners, that is, New Zealand, when New Zealand had the guts to challenge the United States' nuclear component of the agreement which had sprung up by a series of secret agreements. New Zealand challenged the United States and said that the ANZUS Treaty did not oblige New Zealand to host nuclear warships in New Zealand ports. The New Zealand Government, on behalf of the New Zealand people, said very clearly: `We do not need to be defended by nuclear weapons. We do not intend to be defended by nuclear weapons and we do not want nuclear weapons coming into our ports'. The New Zealand Government had every right, within the terms of the ANZUS Treaty, to make such a declaration. It was the United States which reneged on its agreement and on its responsibilities to meet annually with the alliance partners. The bases in Australia which contribute to the nuclear war fighting strategies of the United States against the Soviet Union have come about by these secret agreements. They have never been discussed by the Australian people, nor even by the Australian Parliament. They were placed here at the invitation of the Menzies Government, worried-quite rightly-that the ANZUS Treaty did not commit the United States to come to Australia's aid in time of crisis. That Government decided that the United States needed a vested interest in this area and needed bases to be placed on Australian soil to ensure that, if Australia did get into difficulty, the United States would have some reason for coming to our aid. These bases contribute substantially to the nuclear war fighting strategies of the United States in opposition to the Soviet Union. I do not intend to be misrepresented in this place, so I will not suggest that by cutting the alliance ties with the United States we should become a lackey of the Soviet Union. Far from it; we should have no alliances whatsoever with any nuclear states. We should not be contributing to doing the dirty work for one of the nuclear super-powers in its tracking and targeting operations against the other. We should not be used in this way. Our Government has invited the bases to be placed on Australian soil, and successive Australian governments have allowed Australia to be used and abused by one super-power tracking and targeting the Soviets. I am not an apologist for the Soviet Union, and I think that we should not be involved in any alliance with any nuclear super-power whatsoever. I deplore the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, for example, and I deplore the increasing Soviet presence in the Pacific Ocean. I deplore the existence of the base at Cam Ranh Bay. But I deplore even more our Government's involvement with the other super-power which is engaged in a very destabilising situation against the Soviet Union. We have no business being involved with this super-power rivalry, on either side. It is a moral stand that Australia should be taking. Australia should be involved in seeking peace, not in contributing to the nuclear war fighting strategies of one super-power. We are doing everything that the United States wants, short of having nuclear weapons stationed permanently on Australian soil. We are doing everything possible to contribute to the nuclear war fighting capabilities of the United States. We are the eyes and the ears of the United States nuclear war fighting capabilities. I believe that that is an immoral position. I believe that Australia should be looking towards an independent and self-reliant defence capability. It is time that the peace movement in Australia presented an alternative security strategy in very positive terms, and that we stopped saying only `no bases, no warships and no uranium mining'. The peace movement is addressing the issue of alternative security. It is most important that we do that. Before I talk further about alternative security very briefly, I want to mention the ridiculous statements that we are meant to accept as the functions of the bases on Australian soil, as enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 6 June 1984. The Australian people are meant to be gullible enough to swallow that codswallop which the Prime Minister handed out to us. It told us nothing that was not generally known and, of course, it left unsaid many of the important things that need to be said about the role and function of the bases on Australian soil. To take just one example, Pine Gap has three functions, but the Government will only ever admit to one-the benign afterthought function of monitoring and verification. The arms control treaties that Pine Gap is meant to monitor and verify were not even in place when Pine Gap was established on Australian soil. It is an afterthought function to give credibility and respectability to the other two very sinister functions, one of which, being the ground satellite terminal for the Rhyolite, Magnum and Arcus satellite systems, is like a giant vacuum cleaner sucking up information from any points of the globe that the United States wants to spy on. It is a United States spy base. It collects the information and then sends it back to the United States without any control whatsoever by the Australian Government. That information is used for penetrating the weaknesses in the Soviet air defence radar systems so that effective targeting of Soviet installations can be made by the United States. I submit to the Senate and to the people of Australia that that is an immoral function for a base on Australian soil and that Australia should not be involved in any way in the most immoral war fighting strategies known to humanity, that is, the possible indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons against millions of people. We do not want to be used in that way. It is high time that Australia took an independent road and carved out for itself an independent defence policy outside the framework of that debilitating and immoral alliance with the United States. I believe that we should be working towards a system of transarmament, which is a gradual step by step removal of our dependence on and co-operation with the United States. We need to talk in terms of alternative security. Defensive defence would be a very good first measure. We should not have offensive weapons systems of any kind, because I believe that they produce extra tensions in the region. We should be reducing tensions instead of increasing them and we should be moving first to a situation of defensive defence. The report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and the defence White Paper released earlier this year moved some way in that direction and they had very many important things to say. We should take up the good aspects of both the Dibb report and the defence White Paper as we argue for a defensive defence policy for this country and, ultimately, move towards a defensive system which is based on civilian non-violent defence. With such a system we would not make use of weapons systems of any kind, because the ultimate use of weapons systems is to kill other human beings. That is an immoral position. For those reasons, and also because the presence of these bases on Australian soil and the frequent visits of nuclear armed and nuclear powered warships to our ports make nuclear targets out of us-something to which the Government now will admit-I believe that we should be rid of this alliance. How dare our Government make nuclear targets of Australian people to serve the interests of a foreign nation. And how dare the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) say that the bases are situated in relatively unpopulated areas. How does it make the people of Alice Springs feel to know that they are first strike targets in the event of a nuclear war? That is cold comfort indeed to them. The statements made by Mr Hayden also need to be mentioned here. Mr Hayden keeps saying that if the bases on Australian soil have first strike capabilities we must review our commitment to them. Arguably, from next year the bases on Australian soil will have the capacity for the launching of a first strike attack on the Soviet Union on behalf of the United States. Whether that is the case or not, I believe that we should get rid of this alliance capability. Because nuclear weapons are designed for fighting nuclear wars, the very destabilising and provocative maritime strategy of the United States Navy puts us all at peril. Because the alliance makes a nuclear target out of us-but more importantly because the alliance makes us contribute to the nuclear war fighting strategies of one nation against another nation-I believe that Australia should have no part in it. I commend my amendment to the Senate. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(7.03) —Once more the Senate has been subjected to the most hysterical nonsense from the unilateral disarmers and pacifists that we have come to expect from them. All we get is this hysterical nonsense. But tonight, it was compounded; it was even worse because it was just the most blatant form of sheer political opportunism. At this most inappropriate moment when it is quite impossible to run into any decent sort of debate Senator Vallentine tried to hijack a few minutes on a broadcast day for her cheap and meretricious propaganda for the Soviets. She knew very well when she rose to move this amendment that it was quite out of order for her to do this. She knew that there was not a chance in the world of a reasonable debate being brought on. If anyone was indulging in a first nuclear strike it was Senator Vallentine, knowing that she could do it with impunity, without being brought to book for her nonsense. But she also knew-and this is the dishonest part about it-that the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia would throw this amendment out bag and baggage, as they have on all other occasions. We in this House are very tired of the misrepresentation, not to say the lies, we get from the people who are actively operating in this place as propagandists for the Soviets. Senator Harradine —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I feel that the word `dishonest' is not parliamentary. I feel somewhat offended by it and I ask that it be withdrawn. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I observe the point you have made, Senator Harradine. At the moment Senator MacGibbon has not actually ascribed those remarks to any particular senator. If he does, I will order him to withdraw. General remarks are not out of order, though they are undesirable; but if they are ascribed to any particular senator they must be withdrawn. Senator MacGIBBON —The defence and security of Australia form the most important function of this Parliament. In a modern age this is an extremely difficult process. It is extraordinarily complex and it is very expensive. The last thing we need is people coming out with a truckload of lies as to how this country can be developed. I used to think once upon a time that some of the proponents of this scheme were just ignorant. But we have had this sort of thing put forward so many times now that it is quite clearly part of a premeditated plan of peddling disinformation as to how Australia can be defended. We have heard all this nonsense about a first strike capability that Australia is part of. Australia has no way of supporting a first strike capability of the United States or any other of the Western democracies. It is quite incorrect to claim that. It is quite incorrect and grossly misleading to make flamboyant claims that we are part of a nuclear war fighting machine. We are signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We have no capacity to become involved in that capability. The thing I think I object to most of all is the cowardly intimidatory tactics that these people use of saying that the people of Alice Springs, North West Cape, Nurrungar and other areas are nuclear targets. Senator Sanders —Of course they are. Senator MacGIBBON —People such as Senator Sanders, who is interjecting, and Senator Vallentine try to cower the Australian population into submission for their pro-Soviet aims by saying, `You will be attacked in a nuclear war'. If they had any intelligence and any knowledge of the subject they would know that if a nuclear war broke out there would be no shelters-despite what Mr Lange thinks. A nuclear war would escalate to a total involvement of all the world and there is no sanctuary, no hiding place. Whether Alice Springs is a primary or a secondary target would be quite irrelevant after a nuclear war broke out. The important task that faces us all is to make sure that nuclear war does not break out. The techniques that the Western democracies have developed over the last 40 years, while difficult and while with their own inherent dangers, have given this century the greatest period of peace that it has enjoyed. We could contrast this recent period with the first 40 years of this century, during which over 65 million were killed in two world wars. We have enjoyed peace and security from global conflicts through the practice of deterrence. It is the greatest irresponsibility-not just to Australia, but to humanity-that people such as Senator Vallentine and Senator Sanders seek to destroy that system, which provides the security not only of Australia but of all mankind from a global nuclear conflict, before an alternative system is put in place. We utterly reject this amendment from Senator Vallentine. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(7.09) —I would like to make several points. First of all, I agree with Senator MacGibbon that we need a defence system. But we do not have a defence system in one which relies on nuclear weapons. That is a point which the Opposition apparently has failed totally to recognise. The statistics in relation to nuclear weapons are horrifying. In 1945 a 12,000-kiloton bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Since 1945 the world has been manufacturing the equivalent of one Hiroshima-sized bomb every 20 minutes, day and night, seven days a week, for the last 40-odd years. That is the measure of the potential nuclear holocaust which hangs over human civilisation. The other day I asked a question of Senator Richardson regarding nuclear magnetic pulse. Evidently it is a phenomenon about which Senator Richardson had not heard so I will tell the Senate a little about it. It concerns the pulse of high voltage electricity which passes out instantaneously when a nuclear bomb is exploded. If a weapon were to be exploded approximately 200 kilometres or more above central United States or central Australia it would essentially knock out all communications systems which depend upon transistors in any part of their circuitry; that means all telephone systems, all electric power systems, all communication systems in cars and vehicles which depend upon electronic circuitry, and the communications system on which the ability to retaliate in the event of the outbreak of nuclear war depends. In reading literature from the United States I notice that in the case of the communications system between the central American control and the silos in which the rockets are sited the Americans have 17 independent-- Senator Tate —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I do not want to be disrespectful to the honourable senator. I remind the chamber that we are trying to get this matter resolved by about 7.25 p.m. but I do not want him to shorten his speech for that reason alone. We should confine our remarks strictly to the amendment to do with the alliance with the United States. I do not think I could bear to have yet another exposition of the various effects of nuclear warfare. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The subject before the Chair is the Address-in-Reply debate together with the amendment. Senator Coulter has not spoken in the Address-in-Reply debate and he is entitled to make such a speech if he wishes. Senator COULTER —I am addressing the subject in that it concerns the value of the ANZUS alliance to Australia. The point I am developing is that the ANZUS alliance is of no benefit to this country and therefore I am supporting the amendment which Senator Vallentine has moved. Inability to communicate with rocket launches means that in the United States 17 independent systems connect the central command post with rocket launches, the last one of which involves, quite literally, a physical runner who will tell the men in the rocket silos to send off the rockets. That means that any nuclear war will escalate very rapidly, within minutes or hours, into total nuclear war. There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war. Therefore, that means that Australia would certainly be a target in the event of a nuclear war and it also means, because of the other phenomenon of a nuclear winter, that the side which starts a nuclear war will be as adversely affected as the side which receives nuclear weapons. Therefore, nuclear weapons are not a defence system. Nuclear weapons are a system which can never be used. The Americans and Australians, to the extent that we have come to rely on the American system, have no defence as long as they rely on nuclear weapons. From that point of view I would agree with Senator MacGibbon that we need a defence system but that is not being provided by dependence on a nuclear system. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(7.14) —I rise to make clear my views-I think I speak on behalf of other National Party of Australia senators-on the amendment that has been put before the Senate tonight by Senator Vallentine. We have heard from Senator Vallentine the tired and totally discredited doctrine of morale equivalence. Senator Vallentine put the view that there is no difference between the two super-powers. We have the United States of America on the one hand and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the other hand and that one is as bad as the other. Of course they are both super-powers but if Senator Vallentine really believes that, she had better go back to the funny farm because, as we all know, that is a total travesty of the actual situation. While these remarks may cause Senator Vallentine some mirth I can assure her that they are not causing any mirth to the people around Australia to whom the Nuclear Disarmament Party, and the Australian Democrats, to the extent that they support the motion, are revealing themselves in their true clothing. Senator Sanders —Take a deep breath. Senator STONE —They are people who want to bring down the American alliance. Senator McGauran —Lunatics. Senator STONE —They are lunatics. Senator Sanders, who has participated in this debate by way of interjection, I think at one point took the opportunity of reminding the Senate that we have not had four decades of peace since the end of World war II because during that time we had the Vietnam war. I hope I am not misrepresenting the honourable senator. Senator Sanders —Never. Senator STONE —I am glad to have his assurance to that effect. Of course it was a war. A fortnight ago Australians witnessed a most moving experience, an experience they ought to have witnessed many years ago. Through the streets of this country-- Senator McKiernan —We should never have been involved. Senator STONE —I do not want any help on this matter from Senator McKiernan. Through the streets of this country marched people who had been deprived of the honour that should have been accorded to them when they first returned from Vietnam when that tragic war concluded. Senator Schacht —We didn't support sending the troops to Vietnam. Senator STONE —The honourable senators who I am sorry to say are now interjecting from the Government side were people who joined us not long before that day in voting for a motion moved in this chamber to support that occasion. Honourable senators such as Senator Schacht and one or two of his colleagues are ratting on a motion against which they did not have the courage to vote on the day in question. That is what is happening at the moment. Let me say something else about Senator Sanders's notable interjection on the subject of Vietnam. It is true that because of the efforts of people such as Senator Sanders who were in the United States at that time, the United States lost that war. There is no doubt about that. They had a few helpers from people in this country too, people such as Dr James Ford Cairns, whose names have fortunately been lost in the mists of time, and all the other people who made their reputations in the Australian Labor Party at that time by marching in the streets in company with people the equivalent of Senator Vallentine. The great tragedy of Vietnam-and it was a great tragedy-was not the Vietnam war, tragic though that war was; the great tragedy of Vietnam is what has happened to that country since that war and since its takeover by the aggressive North Vietnamese forces. These were forces of whom people in the United States and in this country such as Senator Sanders were so supportive at that time and, I regret to say, many honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber at that time were also supportive. They did so much to support and thereby to subvert the actions of their governments-I am referring to Senator Sanders's government at that time. He is a renegade American. Let me say something about the amendment which Senator Vallentine moved tonight. By totally abusing the procedures of this place, by playing upon the good nature, if I may put it that way, of her senatorial colleagues, she has obtained a debate on this matter which she otherwise would never have obtained. I happen to think that the views put forward by Senator Vallentine are not merely puerile but also they betray a simple lack of courage of her convictions. Senator Wood —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Senator Stone has accused Senator Vallentine of an abuse of procedure on this amendment. I assume that, if the amendment has been properly moved and we have been allowed to debate it, it is not an abuse of procedure by a properly put amendment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It was a properly put amendment, but that is a debating point, not a point of order. Senator STONE —Recently, we saw Senator Vallentine flourishing her convictions on these matters at Pine Gap with her usual rent-a-crowd mob, members of which are present in the precincts of the chamber at present. Senator MacGibbon —At the expense of the taxpayer. Senator STONE —I am almost certain that, as Senator MacGibbon quite rightly reminds me, they went there at the expense of the taxpayer-including, and not least, Senator Vallentine. These people find it easy in a democratic society to put forward their crazy views but, of course, it would not be the least bit easy to put forward those views if we were as defenceless as they would like us to be. Mr Deputy President, I am sorry to have spoken with some heat on this subject, but I must confess that, when I hear the kind of garbage being put forward by people such as the Australian Democrats-perhaps Senator Vallentine is too young to know better, but they have indicated their alliance with her views on this matter-I am moved to some indignation. I hope that, even though Senator Schacht, who has been trying to interject, is once again indicating his own moral ambivalence on this subject, he will nevertheless join with us in defeating the amendment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before calling Senator Wood, I point out that, having spoken to the Address-in-Reply, he must confine his remarks to the terms of the amendment. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(7.21) —I would like to add a bit of light to the heat generated by the amendment, and I will be mercifully brief. First, the ANZUS alliance is a sham. It does not exist and is not an alliance. The United States of America has finished the alliance and it is now a bipartisan, ad hoc sort of arrangement. Senator McGauran —Thanks to Lange. Senator WOOD —It is not thanks to Mr Lange. Senator McGauran —He ought to be ashamed. Senator WOOD —Mr Lange is not ashamed but is quite proud of his stand on the nuclear issue. I point out that it was the United States which ended its relationship with New Zealand. Mr Lange at all times voiced his desire to keep New Zealand within the ANZUS alliance but for it to be a nuclear free relationship, and for his efforts the United States threw New Zealand out of ANZUS. That highlights the unequal nature of the alliance in that, as I see it, an alliance is an equal relationship where two equals come together and compromise and co-operate. In this situation ANZUS is not an equal partnership: we do as we are told by the United States and the United States does as it likes. The Australian people wish to be defended and want security, and I agree with that. The peace movement is attempting to develop alternative security and defence arrangements to put to the people. However, there is no doubt that the ANZUS alliance does not protect us and does not guarantee our security. In fact, it puts us on the front line of a nuclear conflict. Senator Walters asked Senator Vallentine and me about whether we knew where Cam Ranh Bay was and what happened there. I pointed out to Senator Walters and others that Cam Ranh Bay was built by another foreign power, the United States, in its attempt to subjugate the people of South Vietnam. Senator Stone —What a total distortion of history! Senator WOOD —It is not a distortion of history to say that the United States built Cam Ranh Bay. If the United States abandoned Cam Ranh Bay to Vietnam-as it did-it cannot bleat if others occupy it. As others wish to speak, I conclude by indicating that I support the amendment. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(7.26-Minister for Justice) —The Government rejects the amendment moved by Senator Vallentine. The Government regards the alliance with the United States of America as a natural and worthy alliance with a democratic and representative government and nation. It is natural and worthy because it is an alliance with a country which shares the same cultural tradition and respect for traditional democratic and representative government. We regard the alliance as extremely important. Insofar as a relationship is embodied in the ANZUS Treaty, the consultation and possible aid in accordance with our respective constitutional processes are provided for. Because of that protection of our respective constitutional processes, there is certainly no overbearing of our independent assessment of what might be done in reliance on that Treaty's expression of the overall relationship with the United States. To say that that relationship somehow makes us subservient and a mere agent of the United States is not to accord with the facts. In many international forums, for example, to do with the comprehensive test ban treaty, the Australian Government, in conjunction with the New Zealand Government, has consistently taken a line which has angered the United States over the years, and we will continue to take that line. We do not agree with the United States in respect of the star wars project. We are certainly not merely a servile, subservient junior part of some process which does not allow us to strike an independent foreign policy when occasion requires it. Senator Vallentine said that Australia is doing the dirty work of one of the super-powers in relation to the bases. I quote from Des Ball's latest book, A Base for Debate. It is not a selective quote; it deals with Pine Gap. Des Ball says: Hence it is simply not possible to seriously support arms control and disarmament and at the same time argue for the closure of Pine Gap. The most respected and authoritative commentator on the joint facilities with the United States came to that conclusion. I therefore come to the conclusion, as does the Government, that this amendment to the Address-in-Reply motion ought to be rejected. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Vallentine's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— 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) Aulich, T. Knowles, S. C. (Teller)Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter McGauran, J. J.Bishop, B. K. MacGibbon, D. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R.Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Morris, J. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M.Burns, B. R. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Parer, W. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Patterson, K. C. L.Childs, B. K. Puplick, C. J. G.Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollins, R. L. Reid, M. E.Colston, M. A. Reynolds, M. E.Cook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. Sheil, G.Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, R. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C.Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W.Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Presentation of Address-in-Reply Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Address-in-Reply be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General by the President and such senators as may desire to accompany him. The PRESIDENT —I inform honourable senators that I have ascertained that His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the Address-in-Reply to his opening speech at Government House on Thursday, 5 November, at 12 noon. I extend an invitation to all honourable senators to accompany me on the occasion of its presentation. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being after 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.36) —In several articles in columns syndicated nationally a Mr Keegan has recently raised arguments against immigrants in Australia, against certain classes of immigrants, against a dilution of what he calls the Anglo-Celtic nature of Australian society, and particularly against Asian immigration. At another time I shall deal substantively with Mr Keegan's allegations and deal with the issues. Mr Keegan and I have some other matters between us, which will be dealt with outside the chamber. There has followed from his articles a lively correspondence in the national newspapers, in which I have been involved peripherally, which has produced many responses in the letter columns and much personal mail. Sadly, much of that mail has been against our immigration practices and polices in this country, and much of it has been directed against the politics of multiculturalism. This has raised in my mind a question about Australian's appreciation of the values of multiculturalism and the benefits that it has conferred on Australia. Tonight I intended to bring to the Senate one defence of multiculturalism which has been advanced by an eminent member of our State, Mrs Joanna Kalowski, who is the Community Relations Co-Ordinator of the Anti-Discrimination Board in New South Wales. Recently she gave a magnificent non-political address in defence of multiculturalism, relating to the Bicentennial. The speech was called `Living Together: More than a Bicentennial Slogan'. It is such an important speech that it is my intention to make it available to the Senate. I have spoken to Senator Tate and, because of the late hour, I have suggested to him that it might suit the purposes of the Senate if I incorporate the brief speech into Hansard. Therefore, I seek leave so to do. Leave granted. The speech read as follows: LIVING TOGETHER: MORE THAN A BICENTENNIAL SLOGAN You chose the title of tonight's seminar. I regard it as something of a challenge. It suggests that living together, nationally speaking, is a real goal, an achievable reality. It suggests too that it is time to move the notion of living together from the arena of rhetoric and into action. The celebration of 200 years of white settlement in this land provides us with just such an opportunity. It is a convenient point in our history to look back since history, like life, can only be understood backwards, but must be lived forwards. Over the past decade, the policies of multiculturalism have done much to help us take stock and to answer the question ``Who are we?'' What remains to be done is to ensure that all Australians know the answer. I suggest to you tonight not only that this has not happened yet, but also that there is some urgency in seeing it happen. Without accurate knowledge of our past, we cannot build a just future. Multiculturalism is an acknowledgment in public policy of what I suspect was always the case, namely that we are a diverse society, not a homogeneous one, and that there is strength in our diversity. In order to understand multiculturalism, it is first necessary to understand what it is not. it is not assimilation-the policy it replaced. Indeed, in the interests of looking back to some effect, it is worth recalling the assimilationist view of Australia. Once upon a time, there were two ideals: The typical Australian and the ideal immigrant. Between them was a continuum, along with which the traffic was one-way. If we stop for a moment to analyse the ideals, it soon becomes clear that the whole process is based on a fantasy, a stereotype, ``the typical Australian.'' Whenever I ask children to describe the typical Australian, to fire descriptions at me which I record on a board, this is what I get. ``Would bet on a raindrop rolling down a window pane.'' ``Champions the underdog.'' ``Loves beer. Drinks too much.'' ``Has a beer gut.'' and so on . . . It is usually not long before some witty kid asks ``Hey, what about the women?'' So, the stereotype is male, and, I hope you would agree, sorely restricted. Stereotypes always are. To me this means that if we based an entire policy on a stereotype we were bound to get it wrong. And we did. The bottom line was that people generally, if erroneously, believed that the ideal migrant was he (and I say he advisedly) who turned into the typical Australian in the shortest possible time. This view is erroneous precisely because it is based on a false view of culture as a replacement phenomenon. It is not. It is additive. You do not somehow stop being Greek and start being Australian, you become a Greek Australian. And all that qualifies you to be identified as an Australian. I was fascinated to read recently in Tamsin Donaldson's excellent book `Seeing the First Australians' that for about eighty years in the early colony, Aborigines were referred to as Australians; everyone else was a European. It is fascinating how we appropriated the word along with the land and how words move in to shore up the reality. Within the concept of ``Australian'' there is scope for a host of other linguistic and social and cultural notions. This is simply fact. And the context for addressing such facts is multiculturalism. So why, as many of its critics claim, has multiculturalism not been more effective in achieving its ends? I believe it is because we have become confused between celebrating the outward signs of cultural difference on one hand and actually addressing the different ways in which different people achieve their goals on the other. There is nothing less equal than treating different people the same, just as there is no equality in treating similar individuals differently. And so to multiculturalism itself. It is, as I have already suggested, more than the celebration of cultural differences, interesting though they may be. Multiculturalism, as Laki Jayasuriya at the University of W.A. puts it, has two quite distinct levels; affective and instrumental. The first is, if you like, multiculturalism of the heart, or rather of the liver, given its emphasis on singing, dancing and eating. The second level is structural, the level at which we address structural barriers to participation in society. These include linguistic, social, economic and educational barriers. We have a great deal more to do at this level-in fact we have hardly begun to tackle the issue at the structural level. I say this despite the fact that I am employed at the Anti-Discrimination Board. All too often, I see complaints conciliated but feel the victory may have been Pyrrhic. A minor anomaly has been adjusted, for one individual, but the system from which it arises remains intact. The obstacle course remains unaltered, waiting for the next contestant . . . Tonight also offers an opportunity to examine the social significance of practices and policies as they affect a multicultural Australia, both in the workplace and the wider society. As soon as we add the notion of multiculturalism, our worldview shifts. May I give you an example from my childhood. I think it will assist us in understanding how crucial it is to include this worldview in the education system in Australia. I will quote from a story I wrote about one of my earliest memories of school: ``The songs were unfamiliar, too. No one at my place sang the nursery rhymes that everyone else seemed to know, and I felt a bit of a goose. The stories, too-everyone but me knew just when to laugh. I never could see anything funny about a poor fox falling into prickly briars: everyone in my world told whispered stories of escape and flight. We children soon learned how precarious life could be, how fortuitous survival was, and took no pleasure in seeing pictures of the poor fox trapped and beaten. But most strange of all, I just couldn't seem to reconcile the stories I knew of how we made it over here in tales of ``our forbears'' in their sailing vessels. The settlement of Australia, in my estimation, was a pretty recent and continuing phenomenon. My teachers always seemed to imply it was all over ages ago. In short, my sense of history and theirs were irreconcilably different. I remember wondering who was lying . . . We now know nobody was lying, at least not deliberately. But even today, there are those who propagate the mythology of the settlement of Australia as if it was fact. I need hardly say in this context how damaging it must be to Aborigines that we continue to portray this land as settled rather than conquered, as ``terra nullus'', such that British law could be established without acknowledgement of the presence of the indigenous people, and with what disastrous consequences this was both achieved and perpetuated.'' Unless in our schools, after the 1988 Bicentennial, we teach history and not mythology, the general population will have no basis for understanding an increasingly complex society except at the simplest level of conventional wisdom. It is always amusing to speculate that conventional wisdom is a contradiction in terms. Yet, in Australia, conventional wisdom has it that this was a largely empty land which Britain quietly settled without much opposition. That the Aborigines, being nomadic, had no real attachment to any one place, and obligingly moved on wherever white settlement spread. That murder and betrayal, pitched battles and guerilla warfare are the stuff of cowboys and Indians, not the British and the Aborigines. The facts, as they are now emerging, are incontrovertible: the picture, the mythology is fallacious. It both reflects past injustice and perpetuates it in the present. It has a trapping affect on Aboriginal people, but at the same time, holds back the entire community. Because, as Martin Luther King Jr said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. As with Aboriginal Australia, our view of ourselves as a society of immigrants is schizophrenic. It is at once asserted and denied, promoted and suppressed. Generations of Australians have been expected to assimilate, though with whom remains a moot point. A favorite cartoon of mine depicts a sailing vessel on whose side are the words ``Second Fleet.'' Six sorry-looking men are rowing away from it, while in the prow sits a seventh, arms folded, saying, ``Row you pommie bastards, row.'' The law of prior arrival, it seems, has always been the buttress of power. That ``they'' are not like ``us'' has for generations underpinned the power relationships inherent in migration to Australia. Whether this has been reflected in the labour market or the suburban mix, it is true to say that successive groups have replaced one another at the bottom the heap, with a concomitant slow dispersal in the ranks higher up. Few now know that Australia made a historic decision in the period after World War II to import labour in the form of a planned migration program. Few realise that in those days of ``pull migration'' Australia actively recruited migrants overseas, competing with other nations for new settlers. When it suited us, we gave preference to childless couples so that two adults could take up two jobs immediately. At other times, for other economic reasons, preference was given to immigrants with families. When labourers were needed, the male immigrant's passport was stamped labourer, whatever skills be offered. No such stamp needed to be applied to the passports of females. For them, the immigrant women, the destination was, as the 1975 Jackson Committee Report on manufacturing industry put it, the dirtiest, most menial, most repetitious jobs available. The situation is now reversed. We are experiencing ``push migration'' and conventional wisdom, myopic as always, restricted to the most recent of pasts, makes the unwarranted assumption that it was always so. Forgetting the immigrants who were promised second generation mobility in return for first generation deprivation, it calls on all of them to be grateful for what we in our magnanimity have accorded. Critics conveniently forget that migrants helped to build Australia and its institutions and multiculturalism is derided as a divisive force. A return to assimilationism is preached as the right way to approach contemporary problems. Here again, the mythology is deficient. It has never really incorporated the notion of ``differences'', just as our outback mythology failed to take account of the presence of women. I am certain that it is possible to be a nation, and yet to acknowledge differences. When I recently saw that most American of soapies, Ellis Island, I knew it could be done . . . It accurately, if superficially, portrayed the American myth of nationhood, and gave due emphasis to the struggles of the Irish, the Eastern Europeans and other immigrants in the early 20th century to take their part in the democratic process. The final words that rose over the screen and over a final frozen frame, asserted that three in five Americans today are descended from an immigrant who entered through Ellis Island, which is now a museum of immigration. We have a long way to go before such an assertion finds its way into the conventional wisdom here. And yet it is so. Millions of Australians are here as a result of a deliberate policy to augment the population 1% annually by means of immigration. People who have a right to be here and to have access to what their society offers. Multiculturalism as a policy is belatedly taking stock of the fact that migration not only enriches our palates, our hearts and our livers, but is also about access. It must therefore address itself to questions of equity and hence to questions of structural discrimination, since the effects of certain kinds of policies are to keep particular groups from participating fully in the social, political, cultural and economic life of the community. In that sense we are talking not only about discrimination but also about racism. It is painful and will continue to be so. It is threatening, and will continue to threaten those historically in positions of power. But it needs to be addressed in the pursuit of a just and cohesive society. We tonight in this room, in all our public capacities, have a unique responsibility to promote understanding. Understanding of the way our society works and why; and of whom it comprises and why. Based on these insights, this knowledge, we can clearly see the 1990's and beyond, and plan and dream for the future. A young Aboriginal colleague of mine once told me of his plans for the future. Then, to my surprise, he said, ``Now let me tell you my dreams.'' I remember being amazed that he saw a difference. But then I realised for many people in Australian society, what to me is a plan, for them is a dream. I share with you tonight my hope that together we can harness those dreams, and help make them reality. That we can do it now. If not now, when? Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. Mrs Kalowski has contributed a passionate defence of multiculturalism and the benefits which it has brought to Australia. It is a statement of faith and optimism and defence of immigration policy over the last 40 years. As we come towards the Bicentennial, the last thing we want now in Australia is a new divisive and vicious debate about immigration. This nation has been altered and enriched by the many people who have come here post-war. Those who were refugees and new arrivals 30 or 40 years ago now have to be ready to accept today's refugees and to accept those seeking a new home here in Australia. We are a better nation. Joanna Kalowski has added to our understanding of multiculturalism. I am grateful to the Senate for allowing me to incorporate her very fine words. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.39 p.m. The following paper was tabled: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing lands acquired by agreement under subsection 7 (1).