Tuesday, 23 February 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-Mr President, Senator Chaney has not missed his plane. Senator Chaney is away for personal family reasons today. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. the right of the people of a country to make law independent of politicians should be a basic and independent right; 2. consequently there is an urgent need for constitutional reforms. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: support the Constitutional Alteration (Electors Initiative) 1987 Bill to alter the constitution so as to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 253 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation wide, independent radio and television service. that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia. that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Gareth Evans (from 85 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers, about the proposal to Irradiate Food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should (1) block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia. (2) ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium-137 and caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products. (3) ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, X ray etc.) (4) ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 181 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth that: The introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject out of hand any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls and prevent the Australian people from being seriously affected by yet another ludicrous charge. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Calvert (from 136 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 introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we oppose timed local calls by Telecom. (2) Timed calls should not be introduced in the absence of widespread community support. (3) Timed calls will seriously affect pensioners, the elderly, low income earners and other disadvantaged groups. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 89 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 1985-86 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 Senator Vallentine (from 149 citizens). Senator JONES(Queensland) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, from 60 petitioners, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, requesting that the Senate urge the Government to reform tax for pensioners: SUSSEX INLET COMBINED PENSIONERS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 52, Sussex Inlet, N.S.W. 2540 5.2.88 Hon. Kerry Sibraa Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator I am writing to you concerning the steadily deteriorating position of pensioners. The decline in the value of pensions is well known, yet little is known about the influence of taxation on their living standards. Contrary to popular belief, pensioners pay tax. Not only do they pay sales and excise taxes like other members of the community, but those who earn more than $3.72 per week above the standard pension are liable for income tax. In the next financial year, unless reforms are made to the income tax system, pensioners will pay income tax on the pension itself. More tax reform? The Income Tax reforms undertaken by the Government in 1986-87 brought little relief to pensioners and low income earners. The recently announced review of the Corporate Tax system and of tax concessions in the cause of superannuation provide an opportunity to direct some benefits to people in greater need. It is recognised that there may be some justice in rationalising the Corporate Tax system to make it comparable to our overseas competitors, however, there is a stronger case in our view to direct some attention to the needs of pensioners. The Combined Pensioners Association has proposed an increase in the value of the Pensioner Tax Rebate from $250 p.a. to $700 p.a. This would enable pensioners to earn up to $40 per week above the pension, as allowed under the Social Security means test, without any losses through the income tax system. The Pensioner Rebate has not been increased since it was introduced in 1982 and, through the effect of inflation, its value has declined by 46%. The other matter of considerable concern is provisional tax. The policy of encouraging pensioners to invest their savings to supplement their meagre pensions is being negated through the threat of provisional tax. These two key issues, the threat posed to living standards through the income tax system and provisional tax require urgent attention. As a Senator representing the people of N.S.W. I urge you to support the calls of pensioners for tax reform. Pensioners deserve better treatment than they are getting at the moment. Yours sincerely, (Mrs) G. Driscoll Hon. Secretary Petitions received. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 and the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, and for related purposes. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate Notices of Motion Nos 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 standing in my name for the next day of sitting. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 3 standing in my name for the next day of sitting for disallowance of the Meat Inspection Orders No. 5 1987. Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —These Orders vested in the Secretary to the Department of Primary Industries and Energy a very wide and unreviewable discretionary power to remit certain fees. The former Minister for Resources, the Hon. Peter Morris, MP, has promised the Committee that to protect personal rights the exercise of this discretion will be brought within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Committee commends the Minister for his decision. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a brief description of the Committee's scrutiny and the Committee's brief correspondence in this matter. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Meat Inspection (Fees) Orders (No. 5 of 1987) These Orders stated that the Secretary of the Department ``may, in a particular case, for a reason that the Secretary thinks sufficient, remit the whole or part of an amount of a fee payable under these Orders''. On its face this provision conferred a wide and prima facie, personal discretionary power on an official without any legislative criteria to assist with its fair and unbiased exercise. No avenue of merits review was prescribed that could underwrite the quality and consistency of discretionary decision making and remedy possibly unjust decisions. The Minister for Resources, the Hon. Peter Morris, M.P. explained that the purpose behind the fees remission power was to allow for fairness where fees and fee increases had not been properly notified. However, he accepted the Committee's concern about the width of the discretion and undertook to amend the Order to provide for AAT review rights. PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE XXXV/0/2 STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES 27 November 1987 The Hon. Peter Morris, M.P. Minister for Resources Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 19 November 1987 the Committee considered the Meat Inspection (Fees) Orders as amended (Amendment) (being Meat Inspection Orders No. 5 of 1987, tabled in the Senate on 2 November 1987). The Committee noted that new Order 18 vests in the Secretary a very wide discretion to remit fees. The provision states that: The Secretary may, in a particular case, for a reason that the Secretary thinks sufficient, remit the whole or a part of an amount of a fee payable under these orders. Given the width of this discretion, its subjective drafting, the absence of criteria and the apparent lack of any right to seek review, the Committee requests some further information on the purpose of the provision. It may be that the exercise of a discretion of this kind and width should be reviewable by the AAT. The Committee would appreciate your comments and advice on the new order in the light of these points. Yours sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman MINISTER FOR RESOURCES PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 14 Jan. 1988 Dear Senator Collins I refer to your letter on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, dated 27 November 1987, seeking comments on new order 18 of the Meat Inspection (Fees) Orders, which was inserted by Meat Inspection Orders No. 5 of 1987. New order 18 was made to enable remission of fees that are payable under the Orders where a misunderstanding has arisen as to when the fees are payable and where it would be inequitable to require persons to pay those fees, for example, where there has been inadequate notification of an increase in fees, or where there is confusion about the date from which the Orders apply. Due to the circumstances that may arise it is difficult to specify criteria which would meet all circumstances. The order was introduced at this time to address a misunderstanding by operators and Northern Territory officials in relation to the date of the extension of the Meat Inspection Act 1983 to the Northern Territory and the date from which fees were payable. The lack of the right of review was an unintentional drafting omission. I appreciate the Committee's comments and have instructed officers of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy to prepare an amendment to the order which will include a right to review similar to that provided in other orders. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Yours sincerely (SGD.) PETER MORRIS PETER MORRIS Senator Bob Collins Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. Senator PUPLICK —My question is to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I ask him whether he unequivocally agrees with the comment made in the chamber on 17 February by Senator Burns in the following terms: . . . timber-getters and loggers in the past 100 years have not given a damn about our environment or about the trees and conservation of any part of this country. All they were concerned about was cutting down logs and making a quid. They were not concerned about future generations or if there would be anything left. Secondly, does he unequivocally agree with the Premier of New South Wales that Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd has been raping and pillaging forests in New South Wales? If he does, will he now indicate that he will not grant a woodchip export licence to prevent this rape and pillage, or will he grant the woodchip licence and repudiate Mr Unsworth's statement? Thirdly, will he now protest in the strongest possible terms against the actions of the Unsworth Government and Minister Carr in permitting the devastatingly destructive clear-felling of pines in Kosciusko National Park? Will he be acting to halt this environmental vandalism or is the destruction of the environment quite acceptable to Senator Richardson if it is done by one of his Labor factional mates? Senator RICHARDSON —Firstly, I was asked whether I unequivocally agree with the statement of Senator Burns made in the chamber on 17 February. I did not hear the statement of Senator Burns on 17 February. It cannot be said that I have always agreed unequivocally with everything Senator Burns has said. Nonetheless I have agreed with much of what he has said. It is true that some timber-getters and loggers have acted without giving a damn. There is no question about that. Some have not. Senator Archer —Say yes or no. Senator RICHARDSON —I am trying to say that some have and some have not. It is that simple. Senator Boswell interjecting- Senator RICHARDSON —Those with whom Senator Boswell is associated never give a damn about the environment, but there are others. The next question asked was whether I agreed with the statement of Barrie Unsworth that Harris-Daishowa had been raping and pillaging and, on that basis, would I or would I not grant it an export licence. Firstly, we need to assess what resource is available to Harris-Daishowa. That is what Harris-Daishowa itself is doing at the moment. Now that the Unsworth Government has announced its courageous decision to protect 80,000 hectares of southern forests in national parks obviously there may be some question about how much resource Harris-Daishowa has. When I have received a full report from Harris-Daishowa I will consider whatever role I have in the granting or otherwise of an export licence. I was then asked whether I was going to protest against the Unsworth Government for cutting down pine forests-that is what we are talking about, pine forests-in the Kosciusko National Park. A number of issues are involved with logging in Australia generally. Over many years the environment movement has expressed, firstly, concern about the rape of our rain forests, secondly, concern about the rape of our natural forests and, thirdly, regret that we have planted pine at all. As far as I am concerned, pine plantations will be important to the future of the Australian timber industry. I see no doubt about that. I cannot, however, put pine plantations in the same category as our great natural eucalypt forests and, therefore, do not. I have no objection to the Unsworth Government's action in the Kosciusko National Park. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I asked Senator Richardson whether it is a fact that Australian Labor Party stated policy is not to permit logging in national parks and whether the `courageous decision to protect the environment by declaring national parks' in Labor Party terms simply means drawing boundaries around areas and then allowing one's Labor mates to log within them. Senator RICHARDSON —The boundaries of the Kosciusko National Park were drawn many years ago. The pine plantations were planted many years ago. I would rail against any attempt to log natural eucalypt forests in national parks. I have always opposed that and will continue to do so. I have already answered the rest of Senator Puplick's question adequately. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer to recent accidents involving Metroliner aircraft overseas. Has the Government been monitoring inquiries by aviation authorities into recent crashes of Fairchild Metroliner aircraft? If so, is the Government satisfied with the overall safety of the Metroliner, a type of aircraft which is used very widely on feeder air routes in South Australia and Victoria, in particular, to cities including Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Mount Gambier and Portland? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has been monitoring the crashes of Metroliners that have occurred overseas. We have been in close contact with the United States Federal Aviation Administration and the manufacturers of the Metroliner aircraft with a view to determining the cause of the accidents which have occurred recently. Preliminary information indicates that there is no cause for concern, however, about the integrity of the aircraft themselves. My Department is quite satisfied with the safety of the Metroliners operating in Australia. However, this matter will clearly be kept under close review to ensure that this situation remains. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women to Labor's loss of the seat of Adelaide, to Senator Maguire's survey which shows swings against the Australian Labor Party of up to 26 per cent in that seat since 1984, and to the looming defeat of the Unsworth Government as clear evidence of the fact that Labor has lost touch with the community. Does the Minister accept that the issue of timed local calls in the Adelaide by-election had a particularly strong impact on women, many of whom are alone at home during the day or with small children, including sole parents who use the telephone extensively for help, advice and adult conversation? Is the Minister satisfied that when proposals come before the Government sufficient attention is paid to their impact on people and particularly women? If not, will the Minister recommend that each submission be accompanied by a community impact statement which assesses the effect of proposals on the community as a whole and especially on women? Senator REYNOLDS —I welcome Senator Vanstone's question as an opportunity to remind Senator Vanstone and other members of the Opposition that of course the Office of the Status of Women is in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet precisely for the purpose that Senator Vanstone spelt out. The Women's Budget Statement is a document which quite clearly indicates the Government's commitment to-- Senator Vanstone —It is not read by the electors of Adelaide. Senator REYNOLDS —Do you want an answer? Senator Vanstone —Yes. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator REYNOLDS —As I was saying, Mr President, the Hawke Government, in five years, has done more to raise the status of women than the Opposition could even contemplate. The mere fact that the Government has a Budget Paper that details the impact of the policies of every single portfolio on the women of Australia is ample indication of the Government's commitment to women. In terms of the specific question that Senator Vanstone asked, I am liaising with all of my colleagues in regard to the impact of policies on women. I will of course be liaising on the issue she raised but the Prime Minister has ruled out the introduction of timed local telephone calls, so the issue is as outdated as Senator Vanstone's policies for the women of Australia. I draw Senator Vanstone's attention to a recent opinion poll that showed that the Prime Minister of Australia, Bob Hawke, had a particularly high approval rating amongst Australian women. I do not have details of it with me but I am certainly very pleased to draw this opinion poll to Senator Vanstone's attention. Furthermore, if Senator Vanstone wishes to talk about the forthcoming New South Wales election, I would be very happy to talk about that issue in relation to the New South Wales Government's commitment to women's policies. Senator Vanstone —I want to know whether you will consider the impact of the proposal on the community? That is my question. Senator REYNOLDS —The honourable senator asked me for my response about Government policies in relation to women, and I would like to know-- Senator Vanstone —I want to know whether you have an impact statement. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator REYNOLDS —Well, Mr President, perhaps Senator Vanstone would like to debate in this chamber precisely what Nick Greiner's policies are in relation to women. I have not heard one single word about what his policies are in relation to women. I do know that many women in New South Wales are totally opposed to Nick Greiner's stance on gun control measures, and I think we would have a very interesting debate in this chamber comparing the policies of Nick Greiner, if indeed he has any, because the Opposition is very silent on the question of its policies for women, with the performance of the Unsworth Government in relation to its excellent policies concerning women. Senator VANSTONE —I thank the Minister for her attempt at an answer but she did not answer the question. I did not ask about Nick Greiner; I did not ask about guns; I did not ask about the Prime Minister's popularity; nor did I ask about Mr Unsworth. The final part of my question, which should have given the Minister a hint about what I was asking, was: Does the Government appreciate that it is out of touch and will the Minister do something about this by ensuring that all submissions to government have attached to them community impact proposals, which would allow the Minister to assess the impact on the community and particularly on women? I just use the example of Adelaide to show that the Government is plainly out of touch at the moment. I want to know what the Minister is going to do about this. Senator REYNOLDS —If anyone is out of touch in this chamber, it is Senator Vanstone. Apparently she still does not understand. Government senators interjecting-- Senator REYNOLDS —No, I am being quite serious. Senator Vanstone still does not appreciate that all Government policies since 1983 have in fact gone through that precise process that she has now suddenly discovered in 1988. That is detailed in the Women's Budget Statement. Senator Puplick —Telephone time charging was a deliberate decision and you calculated the impact. Senator REYNOLDS —I have never heard Senator Puplick make a speech about his concern for the status of women; so I think it would be appropriate if he were to listen for a change. It is very important to recognise that it was this Government that set up the Office of the Status of Women within the Prime Minister's Department, precisely for the reason that the honourable senator asked about today. I cannot help it, Senator Vanstone; it is the old teacher coming out. I may be able to teach a few of those opposite a thing or two about the status of women. Senator Vanstone asked me whether the Government will consider its impact on women. Yes, we have already done this across every avenue of government policy. I suggest that she sit down and spend a little time reading the Women's Budget Statement. She will then see that this happens across all portfolios. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister seen a recent newspaper article in which the New South Wales Minister for Consumer Affairs, Mrs Grusovin, alleges that the cost to banks of deposits for less than $50,000 has fallen from 14.25 per cent to 10.25 per cent for a minimum of 90 days, and from 14.24 per cent to 9.75 per cent for a 30-day minimum? She called for banks to justify their failure to reduce credit card interest rates of up to 23 per cent in light of the fall in the cost of deposit funds to banks, saying that banks were `out of step' with the prevailing market. Does the Treasurer agree that this points to an oligopoly having control of credit card rates in a manner which is inconsistent with the competition the Government wants to promote in the financial market? Senator WALSH —I have seen what was not really an article but a news report; I am not sure when it was published, but it was recently, anyway. I am certainly not surprised, although I have not verified the figures, by the declines in interest rate paid on deposits to which Mrs Grusovin referred of between 4 per cent and 4 1/2 per cent. That is, of course, in line with the general fall in interest rates which has taken place in recent months. Senator Stone —No, it is not, Minister. Senator WALSH —On short term loans, which is what these are, Senator Stone. Nor am I able to confirm that some banks are charging borrowers up to 23 per cent on credit card loans. I have not had time to do that. If that is the case and there has been no reduction in the interest rate charged by all or some banks on credit card loans which is compatible with the fall in short term deposits, the only thing I can suggest at this stage is that the people concerned should go to alternative financial institutions-that is, alternative to banks-such as credit unions and building societies, which I understand are providing similar credit facilities at lower rates of interest. Senator JENKINS —Is the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories aware that a number of leopard seals have died on Heard Island, a part of Australia's Antarctic Territory, as a result of anaesthetics or tranquillisers administered by Antarctic Division scientists? Is the Minister aware that, despite seal deaths, the report of the Australian Antarctic research program 1987-88 states on page 80 that it is intended to continue this exercise over a period of years? Who supervises the activities of research scientists experimenting on living animals in Antarctica? Is there an ethics committee of the Antarctic Division? If not, are there plans to establish such a committee? If not, why not? Senator RICHARDSON —There have been leopard seal deaths on Heard Island, five of which I have been made aware of. Given that the purpose of Question Time is to inform the Senate, I should also confess that a number of elephant seals-so far nine that I have been made aware of-have died on Macquarie Island as a result of the use of anaesthetics to tranquillise the seals. The use of anaesthetics is part of the program to allow data to be collected on stomach contents and-near and dear to me in this place-blubber thickness, blood type and other work that is important in looking at seal populations. Given that during last week I announced some action in respect of penguins and referred their injection with radioactive isotopes to a scientific committee, the news of these deaths has caused me some concern. There is no question that the death rate is higher than that expected. Obviously, there has been some underestimation of the effects of tranquillisers on seals when they go back into the herd and find that they are less able to defend themselves against the others. That being the case, I have issued instructions that the use of anaesthetics must be stopped pending a referral of this matter to the committee which is looking at the question of the penguins. I hope that if we can get that information through in the next few days-I think we are having some radio difficulty-we will be able to make sure that the process stops until there has been a proper evaluation. I should point out that all of these experiments are being conducted by highly qualified veterinarians, so there is no question of their being done by amateurs. As far as the ethics committee part of the question is concerned, there is no ethics committee in the Antarctic Division. When I have received the results of the two inquiries that are now being made I might make a decision on whether there ought to be one. Senator COLLINS —My question is to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Is it the case that the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986, which was proclaimed on 1 July 1987, cannot be implemented until regulations are made specifying the control list of significant objects to be protected by the Act? Why have the regulations not been made and when are they expected? Senator RICHARDSON —It is true that the regulations have not been made, and I should give some explanation. First off, obviously the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act aims to keep in Australia those objects which uniquely represent our culture. There are two categories: category A, containing those things which should never leave our shores, and category B, containing things which should leave our shores only after a proper evaluation. While the legislation is not retrospective, it will at least ensure that there will be no further depletion of items of cultural importance of the kind of which I am now speaking. It should also be noted that implementation of the legislation will put us in line with 60 countries around the world which have so far acknowledged the need for such legislation under the appropriate United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention. I would hope it will make us a nation keen to identify and protect our national cultural identity. However, there have been some hold-ups in the control list of categories, and some disputes between departments. An interdepartmental committee (IDC) has been set up. I am very hopeful that we will get a positive response from the IDC within two to three weeks. The regulations will then be made and the legislation can be implemented. Obviously if that timetable is way out I will have to account for that here. I am hopeful that the matter can be resolved, and resolved quickly. Senator TAMBLING —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Is the Minister aware of the gross under-representation of women among senior decision-makers in higher education, and in particular is she aware of the report by Professor Helen Hughes in the Times on Sunday of 14 February that there is only one woman vice-chancellor in Australia, only 3 per cent of the professors are women, and in science the number falls to 2 per cent and in engineering and economics and commerce it is only one per cent? I ask the Minister whether she agrees with the following comment of Professor Hughes: Women who take part in intellectual debate in Australia have to be prepared to be treated as lepers. Does the Minister share the concern of Professor Di Yerbury, Vice-Chancellor of Macquarie University, who, according to a report in the same newspaper, has told the Affirmative Action Agency that the Government's plans to divert resources to science and technology fields `could have major ramifications for the social sciences and humanities where women are more likely to be employed'? As the Minister responsible for enhancing the position of Australian women-which Senator Reynolds certainly failed to do in her answer to Senator Vanstone-what action will she take to ensure that the Government's alleged interest in the advancement of women is not cancelled out, at least in higher education, by another Government policy? Senator REYNOLDS —I welcome Senator Tambling's question because it gives me the opportunity to announce that I will be discussing just this issue with Professor Hughes on Thursday. I can assure all honourable senators and all women who have been expressing their concerns about a number of the issues just outlined that I will be addressing these matters as a matter of some priority. I think at this stage it is most appropriate for me to reassure the honourable senator that I do have a number of concerns, and I will be discussing them with Professor Hughes, on Thursday. Senator TAMBLING —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am disappointed that it is only on Thursday that the Minister will be discussing these issues with senior academic women in Australia. I ask her, further, what action she has taken in the past to ensure that planned higher education changes and the policies of this Government announced by Mr Dawkins are in fact consistent with the policies that both she and the Prime Minister have been advocating. Senator REYNOLDS —All I can say is that this Government has done a great deal more than has the Opposition. It might be of interest to know that it was under the Fraser Government that, as an academic woman, I was retrenched. So I am in a very good position to understand precisely what the policies were of the Opposition and I have no qualms at all about addressing a number of the present issues. Senator McMULLAN —When does the Minister for Home Affairs expect to receive the report from the Australian Electoral Commission on enrolment movements in Federal divisions over the past three years? Can the Minister confirm whether there have been any significant variations in enrolment from the projections made by the Electoral Commission at the time of the 1984 redistribution? Senator ROBERT RAY —I expect to receive in the next two weeks the report from the Electoral Commission. That report, 3 1/2 years down the track from the redistribution, will comment on and show whether its predictions in 1984 on enrolment growth were right or wrong. Over a number of years the Electoral Commission has also put out graphs indicating the trend lines. Having read those over the last few months, it is particularly gratifying to see how closely the projected and actual enrolments are. When we established this section of the Commonwealth Electoral Act in 1983, we anticipated many problems that commissioners would face in predicting future enrolments because there is no scientific or proven statistical method by which this can be carried out with absolute precision. It is a little easier to do than picking Melbourne Cup winners-but not much. For the most part, the trend lines are very encouraging. I expect that with that experience behind them, the next time there is a redistribution the commissioners will be able to do it with even more accuracy. There are one or two aberrations, but before I move to those let me say that only one electorate, the electorate of McPherson, is now outside the 10 per cent variance allowed. That is a very remarkable achievement in our electoral laws when we consider what happened in the past. For instance I will go back to 1966 when the seat of West Sydney had 29,000-odd electors and the seat of Bruce in Victoria had 120,000 electors. We had these 4 : 1 ratios consistently. Even after the 1966 election, the variation in enrolments in New South Wales was 32.15 per cent. So thanks to the support of not only the Australian Labor Party but also the Liberal Party of Australia for this part of the legislation when it went through-naturally, the Nationals did not support it-we can be gratified that those achievements are there. In one or two cases I regard the result as disappointing. The seat of Scullin is one and there are one or two others in which predicted growth simply did not transpire. I know that the Commissioner not only has investigated in the theoretical sense by checking with as many sources as possible; he has also driven around the electorate of Scullin to try to discover the reasons why the growth did not occur. Any people who have had experience in drawing up submissions to the Electoral Commission-and I know there are a few in this chamber-predicting growth or otherwise, know it is not a particularly easy task. At least with that one criterion for redistribution being dominant, for the first time we have a very objective approach to redistribution-one that is missing in nearly every other country in the world and, in many cases, in State governments in this country. I hope that when those figures are released people will be able to acknowledge the excellent job done by those redistribution commissioners in terms of those predictions in 1984. Armed with that knowledge and a little more experience hopefully in the future the figures will become even more accurate. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Based on her answer to Senator Tambling's supplementary question, I ask: Will the Minister acknowledge that she was appointed on the basis of an affirmative action decision by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, who insisted on having another woman in the Ministry? Does the failure of Ms Sue Robinson to gain preselection to replace Susan Ryan in this chamber mean that, when put to the test, Mr Hawke's support for affirmative action does not overcome factional loyalties and policy stands, such as opposition to uranium mining, which he finds offensive? Is it the Government's view that women should win places in politics and elsewhere on the basis of merit alone, or is the Prime Minister correct in saying that gender should be taken into account as in her own situation? Senator REYNOLDS —I regret that Senator Chaney is not here because I seem to recall that on a number of occasions when questions have been raised over the last few years about internal Liberal Party politics, Senator Chaney has risen to his feet to emphasise that Liberal Party policy is not-- Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! There have been too many interjections when Senator Reynolds has been answering questions. I ask Senator Reynolds to address the Chair and ignore the interjections. Senator REYNOLDS —Thank you, Mr President. As I was saying, I believe that Senator Chaney has established a very useful precedent by saying that Liberal Party policies are a matter for the Party, just as my response to Senator Knowles's question is that preselection is an internal Party matter and I do not have any comment on it. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware of reports claiming that many people are failing to apply for the family allowance supplement? Can the Minister report to the Senate on the take-up rate for payments made under the new family allowance supplement, particularly in the light of Senator Bjelke-Petersen's comments last night that the supplement may even be contributing to poverty? Senator RICHARDSON —The latest figures do indicate that approximately 100,000 families will be receiving the family allowance supplement by March. That is about half of the estimated population in the relevant income range. I can inform the Senate that, as of 5 February, 80,000 applications had been approved and 22,000 claims were waiting to be processed. The payments are going to the families they were meant for. The typical recipient is aged 25 to 39 years with a very young family. There are already more than 200,000 children in families that are receiving the family allowance supplement. More than one million children are now benefiting from the family package overall, and that includes the children of all recipients of social security. The important thing to note is that an overwhelming majority of those children are under 13 years of age. Average payments are in the range of $40 to $60 per week. There has been a strong response in New South Wales to the school outreach campaign of the Department of Social Security and in the past two weeks alone more than 4,000 families have been granted package payments. In fact, the Government is now paying out new claims at a rate of 400 every day. In conclusion, I can only contrast that to the efforts of the Liberal Party on fighting poverty. It is best to quote Mr Howard on that matter. On 25 June last year he stated: A Liberal Government would expect the general economic upturn engendered through the incentive effect of tax cuts to ease poverty, rather than any direct action. This Government is taking direct action; it is easing poverty and it is working well. Senator CROWLEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Further to the information the Minister has given, does he have any understanding of when the other 50 per cent take-up might be expected to occur and on whether the Government is taking any steps to make sure that it does happen? Senator RICHARDSON —As I mentioned, we have got the school outreach program, which has been very successful. The Department is continuing to publicise its efforts but, hopefully, more and more people will be encouraged to contact the local Social Security office and make further inquiries. At the current rate of take-up, certainly by the middle of the year we would expect nearly all those families to be being looked after. Senator CHAPMAN —I direct a question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Will the Minister reconsider changes to the grants to women's organisations and restore the operational grants previously paid which the Government has replaced with National Agenda for Women project grants? What complaints has the Government had about this change? Does the Australian Capital Territory Women's Consultative Council approve of the change? What is the attitude of the Business and Professional Women's Association, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the National Council of Women, and the Country Women's Association to the change? Senator REYNOLDS —I welcome the interest of members of the Opposition in status of women issues. I hope that their interest is not short-lived and that some of the answers that can be provided in this chamber will assist them in further developing their own policies. Senator Vanstone —When will we get the answers? Senator REYNOLDS —But you should have some policies, I suggest, Senator Vanstone. In answer to the honourable senator's question, I have this week met with a number of the organisations that he mentioned-the National Council of Women, the Women's Electoral Lobby, and the Business and Professional Women's Association. I have met also with the chairperson of the National Women's Consultative Council. It is certainly of concern to them that there is less money available for grants to those organisations. I have tried to get the message across to them that the Government is in a period of economic restraint, when every sector, across all portfolios, has to accept the need for cutbacks. I hope Senator Walsh is listening and will appreciate that, even within the relatively small financial allocation that has been made to women's organisations, this year we were prepared to accept a lesser amount than the amount previously given. Certainly I will be going to bat for a larger slice of the cake, if you like to put it that way. I acknowledge the very important work of our national women's organisations. Already I have a member of my office preparing some comparisons-what amount has been given in relation to status of women's issues and what is given to other organisations. I believe that the women of Australia have to be responsible in accepting their responsibilities, just as other organisations and State governments and local government have all had to accept the present climate of economic restraint. Of course, as a good Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, I will certainly be arguing very strongly that there should be a greater share of finance available to assist those organisations, and I have indicated that to them in my meetings this week. Senator CHAPMAN —I ask a supplementary question. Is it a fact that the ACT Women's Consultative Council has not objected to the expenditure restraint with regard to grants for women but has, in fact, objected to the previous operational grants being changed to grants in relation to the National Agenda for Women project grants and has described the current offer of grants for research on National Agenda items as `wasteful and impractical' and has also said to the Government that `the credibility of the Australian Labor Party's commitment to improving the status of women could well be viewed as being in serious doubt' as a result of these changes? Senator REYNOLDS —I spoke with the ACT women's adviser last week, and that was certainly not the impression I gained in my discussions with her. The important thing that will be much clearer after the launch of the National Women's Agenda on Monday, 29 February is that, with those resources that we have, we focus on the issues that were reflected in our consultations with Australian women. I am sure that all honourable senators would agree that it would be foolish to conduct widespread consultation and to communicate with Australian women and tell them that we are listening to them and want to know what their priorities are but then to ignore those priorities of women at the grass roots level when allocating resources, grants, to women's organisations. I think any criticism along the lines that Senator Chapman outlined is not at all valid, because one does not conduct extensive consultation with women in Australia and then ignore them. That is precisely what Senator Vanstone did in relation to the portrayal of women in the media. Apparently she did not appreciate when putting her question to me last Thursday that it was precisely because 28 per cent of Australian women indicated their concern about the portrayal of women in the media-the vital question of the dignity of women-that the Government responded. When it comes to how the Government allocates its resources, it makes sense that it allocates them only on the basis of the needs that have been identified by Australian women within the national agenda. Senator Vanstone —Mr President, on a point of order: I ask under standing order 364 that Senator Chapman table the document from which he was quoting. Senator Chapman —I table the document. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is the Minister aware of actions taken by some State governments to include the family allowance supplement in the calculation of public housing rentals? Can the Minister inform the Senate of what action has been taken by the Commonwealth Government to protect the integrity of family package payments? Senator RICHARDSON —As I said in answer to the question asked by Senator Crowley, the Government is committed to the elimination of child poverty. As to the question of what the Government will take into account in respect of housing rentals, the Government has been active with the States. On 18 February a meeting of Commonwealth and State housing officials was held to discuss how this might best be done. The decision of that meeting was that the housing officials would ask their Ministers to recognise the Commonwealth's objective on child poverty and to review procedures for assessing income and rent for low income parents, in the light of whatever additional payments they might receive from the package. So the Commonwealth is seeking State government support to end child poverty. It is hoped that the officials who reported from that meeting will have some success. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Aged Care will shortly write to State housing Ministers seeking their formal endorsement of the resolution made at that meeting. We welcome the positive steps taken by State officials to ensure that the benefits of the family allowance supplement will stay with the families who have been targeted to receive payments. This issue will be pursued by the Commonwealth at a meeting of housing Ministers in May. Already one State has indicated that it will not undertake to review income rebate policy. If one were to look at the States of Australia in an effort to determine which State would be the most useless, the most backward thinking, and, dare I say, redneck State, I wonder what State one would come up with? It is a State very close to the heart of Senator Boswell-Queensland. Queensland will not undertake any such review. Though the Queensland Government says that it will support the Commonwealth's anti-poverty objective, it simply will not do anything about it. It has not committed itself to help us with the effectiveness of the program. Even the honourable member for Bradfield has acknowledged how bad poverty levels are in Queensland. Senator Boswell ought to check with him, if he ever checks with anyone. In December 1987, as an example, for the twenty-second month in a row Queensland had more unemployment than Victoria, which has a work force 65 per cent greater. That is how Queensland contributes to poverty in Australia. It has ruined its economy. That can be contrasted with other more enlightened administrations such as New South Wales which do so much better. Senator CALVERT —My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. In November last year, in response to questions from both Senator Wood and me regarding the wilful sacking of the democratically elected local government of the City of Sydney by the Unsworth Labor Government, the Minister made some very vague, dutiful comments in which she apparently offered her total support to the principles and traditions of elected local governments. In light of the New South Wales Government's perhaps understandable protracted delay in resolving this matter, is the Minister prepared to stand up and be counted by publicly stating her support for the return of a democratically elected local government to the City of Sydney? Senator REYNOLDS —Mr President, I do not know how your hearing was, but I thought Senator Calvert said `he' in referring to the Minister for Local Government. When I answered the question on the dismissal of the Sydney City Council last year I made it quite clear that I had taken up this issue with the New South Wales Minister for Local Government, the Hon. Janice Crosio, and that I had also spoken to Mr Unsworth's office about it. As the honourable senator would be aware, Judge Goran is re-considering his original recommendation. I have said, in any number of letters I have written in response to local government, which have expressed very genuine concern about the dismissal of democratically elected councils, that I welcome the future time when a democratically elected Sydney City Council will be returned. Senator CALVERT —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In spite of the Minister's concern about this matter, is she aware that the local government and shire associations of New South Wales feel so threatened by the very real possibility of future sackings that they have been forced to mount an advertising campaign reinforcing the need for the powers and responsibilities of local government to be preserved within New South Wales? Senator REYNOLDS —I am not aware that the Local Government Association is running advertisements on precisely this issue and this issue alone. I am aware that it is running advertisements about a whole range of issues of concern to local government because it wants to be sure that local government issues are addressed in the context of the New South Wales election campaign. If the Association is so concerned about the issue of the Sydney City Council I presume that it has every confidence that the Unsworth Government will be returned. Senator FOREMAN —I draw the attention of the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer to comments which the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, made on the Sunday program in answer to questions about his role as Treasurer in the Fraser Liberal Government. On that program Mr Howard said that the events of five years ago when he was Treasurer in that disastrous period immediately prior to the election of the Hawke Labor Government were too long ago and irrelevant to today. How long did it take Government fiscal policy to overcome what Mr Howard said was too long ago and what implications could such a lapse of memory have on Australia's perilous economic situation should we see a return to the policies of the Fraser-Howard Administration? Senator Lewis —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 99. I point out that the questioner has phrased his question in such a way that he has raised a hypothetical matter and he has asked for the Minister's opinion on that hypothetical matter. He has also made statements which I believe he cannot authenticate. If he has a transcript of the evidence I would like him to table the transcript in order to authenticate it. Otherwise, I ask you to declare the question out of order. Senator Robert Ray —On the point of order, Mr President: Senator Foreman put a proposition-and it is not up to you to adjudicate on the veracity or otherwise of it-and he then asked Senator Walsh to comment on Government policy. Senator Foreman stated a situation which in his mind he believed occurred in 1982-83 and asked Senator Walsh whether that was the case and what Government action could be taken and has been taken to remedy that position. Therefore, I submit, Mr President, that the question is entirely in order. The PRESIDENT —I rule the question in order. It is within the Minister's area of responsibility. I have no power as to how a Minister will answer a question. Senator WALSH —It is known that the ultimate cowards who populate the Opposition benches, after trying many failed strategies, have decided that they will try to have ruled out of order every question that is asked of me or, that strategy failing, constantly to interrupt so that no coherent answer can be given. Let that be the first point that is noted. I have been asked how long it took this Government to clean up the fiscal mess which John Howard left behind him when he was kicked out as Treasurer of the country five years ago, and the answer is that it has taken us five years to clean up the fiscal mess that John Howard left behind him. I table a page from the published Forward Estimates which shows, on a no policy change basis, what the outlook for Commonwealth expenditure was in every year from 1981-82 to 1986-87. The published graph shows that there was a very high rate of increase in the Forward Estimates on a no policy change basis. It was extremely high in 1981 and 1982. It gradually flattened out and now-for those who can see this graph-the thick line at the bottom shows that the outlook for growth in Commonwealth outlays on a no policy change basis is in fact negative. Further numerical evidence showing why the shape of those curves is as it is for the early 1980s can be found in this year's Budget Papers. They show that in the five years that Mr Howard was Treasurer real Commonwealth outlays, starting from 1978-79, increased by 1.5 per cent, fell by 0.9 per cent and increased by 3.5 per cent, 2.6 per cent and 6.9 per cent. Two things need to be added to that: one is that the 1979-80 figure was attributable, I believe entirely, to the changed health care arrangements that were made in that year, to the essentially cosmetic trick of getting outlays off the Commonwealth Budget and pushing them back on to households. The second, of course, is the accelerating rate of outlays at the end of this year. Since Senator Stone has sought to interject, in respect of the 1982-83 Budget and the fiscal chaos that that would have induced had there not been a change of government, in the note that Senator Stone prepared to send to Mr Howard on or about 5 March 1983, had the Fraser Government been returned, Senator Stone wrote: When the estimated cost in 1983-84 of the new policy proposals announced in the policy speech is added, the prospect is for a Budget deficit of almost $10 billion. Such a deficit would be equivalent to 5 1/2 per cent of projected GDP, the highest in Australian post-war history. On the next page of the same document, Senator Stone wrote: First, the magnitude of the fiscal imbalance is unprecedented in Australia during peace time, as is the level of Government spending. I think Senator Stone put quite succinctly and accurately what the fiscal situation was five years ago. It has taken us five years to clean it up. But if the vandal that perpetrated the events of five years ago was to return in a position of power in government-and that was the last part of Senator Foreman's question-I predict something similar; that he would wreak the same chaos and havoc as he did when he had the opportunity to do so as Treasurer. Senator Puplick —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I put it to you that, since the Minister is clearly referring to the Leader of the Opposition, the use of the term `vandal' in that sense is quite unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Order! It is a personal reflection on a member and I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —I withdraw. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Territories but it could also be answered by Senator Reynolds, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Why does not the Government this week ban X-rated videos once and for all? Should the Government any longer evade public duty by hiding behind the fact that a parliamentary committee has had this as a term of reference for the last three years? I draw the Minister's attention to the parliamentary inquiry into the Special Broadcasting Service-Australian Broadcasting Corporation merger, which was short-circuited by the Prime Minister in his decision to reverse government policy foreshadowing the pending conclusion of that inquiry. Why does the Government not accept that for sound reasons every State of Australia has banned X-rated videos? Why does the Government not acknowledge the harm continuing every month that these State bans are evaded by any adult Australian getting X-rated videos from Canberra? In conclusion, I especially refer the Minister to the harm arising to the nearest neighbours of Canberra, the people of New South Wales. Will this Government, before the New South Wales election, act decisively to end Canberra's distinction under this Labor Government as the purveyor of violence and the pornography capital of Australia? Senator RICHARDSON —As the Senate would be well aware, the question of X-rated videos has been considered by a Senate committee over a long time. Senator Bishop interjecting- Senator RICHARDSON —I did not hear Senator Bishop's interjection, and I am probably glad I did not. The Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Capital Territory Administration are also examining the question and will be having a series of meetings. I hope they will give us some further information during March. As soon as that has happened I shall inform the Senate. If it is possible to take action on the basis of the information I receive prior to 19 March, I shall. Senator McLEAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Has the Minister seen the article in the Northern Star newspaper of 16 February 1988 concerning the dangerous deterioration of just one of the more than 350 timber bridges over 50 years old in the Kyogle Shire of New South Wales alone? Is the Government aware of how widespread this problem is, not only in the Kyogle Shire, but throughout New South Wales and indeed throughout the whole of Australia? Considering the danger posed by the inevitable deterioration of timber bridges all over Australia, will the Minister consider negotiating with local and State governments to provide at least some Federal financing for the introduction of a program of inspection, assessment and maintenance of these timber bridges, and replacement of the worst of them? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have to confess that I have not seen the article in the Northern Star about the condition of timber bridges in the Kyogle Shire in New South Wales, but my Department of Transport and Communications probably has. It is certainly an absolute mine of information on the subject of the Kyogle Shire, which I am happy to share with Senator McLean. The Kyogle Shire has written to the Prime Minister on this matter and its letter has been referred to me for my attention. The responsibility for timber bridges on arterial and local roads such as those in Kyogle Shire is primarily that of State and local governments. Senator Puplick —Unsworth has done nothing about it in 12 years. Senator GARETH EVANS —We will get to that. The Federal Government provides a base level of financial assistance for roads. In 1987-88 the figure that was spent by the Federal Government in providing for roads under the Australian land transport program (ALTP) and the Australian bicentennial road development program was $1.25 billion. Kyogle Shire is receiving $334,000 in 1987-88 under the ALTP and has had five projects totalling $454,000 approved under the bicentennial road program. That Council has, however, chosen not to allocate any of these very large funds to the replacement of timber bridges. The State, however, has provided, from Federal local road reserve funds, for the construction of bridge approaches to the Richmond River in the Shire, costing $210,000. I do not know what happens when one gets on to the bridge, but one will certainly have a safe ride in getting that far, and it is up to the local council as to what happens thereafter. The distribution of Federal local road funds in New South Wales is based on a formula which takes into account both road and bridge links. It is for the State and local government to determine the need for any special bridges inspection, assessment and maintenance programs. Finally, let me say that the Federal Government also provides substantial general purpose financial assistance to local government. Payments to New South Wales councils will total $220m in this financial year. I remind the Senate that Kyogle Shire is free to use its share, not only of the specific road program funds, but also of general purpose assistance for any purpose considered appropriate, including the replacement and maintenance of timber bridges. Senator McLEAN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Despite the irrelevance of much of the detail in the Minister's answer-even though I appreciate the detail-it does not focus on the fact that we have a problem of enormous magnitude. Would the Minister please convey, on behalf of the Senate and on behalf of the people living in rural areas of Australia in particular, the seriousness and magnitude of this problem and the total inadequacy of the funds allocated in relation to it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept the last premise of Senator McLean's question. The Government is aware of the road needs of local government, including some of those that have arisen in relation to timber bridges and the like which are manifestly in need of replacement. The Senate can be assured that the Government is taking these needs into account in its current deliberations over future road assistance programs. Senator REYNOLDS —On Thursday in Question Time Senator Vanstone asked me a question concerning the Government's study of sex role portrayal of women in advertising. I undertook to respond in more detail to the issues she raised. Senator Vanstone, I believe, has misunderstood the nature of the Government's study. The study was generated by the responses of the women of Australia to the National Agenda for Women consultations. As I said earlier in Question Time, 28 per cent of respondents to the National Agenda consultations, or about 7,000 women, identified the dignity of women as a top priority concern, with comments relating to the portrayal of women in advertisements, particularly their depictions as foolish, submissive, dependent and as sex objects. The Government is not planning to censor the media or the advertising industry in this regard. It is aiming to inform the industry of the results of its investigations and offer guidelines for a more positive portrayal of women in the media. The Media Council of Australia has in place a system of self-regulation which strives to accurately reflect community opinions and concerns and accordingly, must be subject to a process of constant review and development. I stress that, for 28 per cent of respondents to identify in the National Agenda that the dignity of women and the portrayal of women in the media to be of concern is an issue that the Government has a responsibility to respond to. Clearly, the women of Australia believe that community values and concerns are not adequately reflected in the current advertising codes or in the administration of the self-regulation system. In fact, the Media Council of Australia has already approached the Office of the Status of Women to provide representation of women on its self-regulatory advertising bodies. I hope that that clarifies the situation for Senator Vanstone. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs) —On behalf of the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, I seek leave to make a statement entitled `Self-Reliance and Co- operation: Australia's Regional Defence Policy', to move to take note of the statement and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Since the publication of the Dibb report on Australia's Defence Capabilities 18 months ago, there has been much discussion of Australian defence policy and the key concepts that underlie that policy. This Government has fostered that discussion, seeking to encourage the exchange and development of ideas between the defence establishment and the community at large. As honourable senators are aware, this process culminated last year in the release of the policy information paper The Defence of Australia-the first White Paper on Australian defence policy for 11 years. The exchange of views is a two-way process and will, I hope, lead to a more thorough understanding of the substance of our defence policy among the broader community. My aim today is to continue that process by outlining the actions the Government is taking in our regional defence relations to reinforce the positive factors in our strategic environment. Much of the public debate on Australia's defence policy since the publication of the Dibb Review has concentrated on force structure issues. In the statement to the House almost a year ago, on 19 March 1987, the Minister for Defence noted that this Government has established the course for a decade or more of development of a self-reliant capability for the defence of Australia. We have developed a force structure plan specifically tailored to Australia's unique strategic circumstances. We are pressing ahead with the largest capital equipment program for the ADF in Australia's peacetime history. What has often been overlooked is that the same capabilities that we are developing for the defence of Australia are well suited to co-operation with our regional and other defence partners. It is salutary to remember that Australia's self-reliant defence posture has been developed within the framework of our alliances and regional associations. These associations are of great importance to us. Relations with countries within our area of primary strategic interest are crucial, because it is within this area that developments can have the most impact on Australia's security prospects. In October and November last year the Minister for Defence undertook a series of visits to some of our neighbours in South East Asia and the South West Pacific. Those visits had three main purposes. Firstly, he wanted to explain to our neighbours the direction of Australian defence policy following the publication of our white paper, and particularly to explain how we see the development of our defence relations with our neighbours in the light of that policy. Secondly, he wanted to learn from our neighbours how they perceive their own strategic circumstances and military needs, and to learn how they think Australia could best cooperate with them to protect mutual interests. Thirdly, he wanted to discuss a number of specific proposals for defence cooperation between ourselves and our neighbours. His talks in the countries he visited were very fruitful in all these respects, and as a result he believes we have now established a solid framework of defence relations with our neighbours. I have sought this opportunity to address the House so that I may describe this framework of regional defence relations, explain how it fits into our overall defence policy, and outline the practical cooperative activities which will give our regional defence relationships real substance. Close attention to our regional defence relations is important at this time, because many of the policies, assumptions and habits which for decades provided the strategic and operational basis for much of our regional defence activity have, over the past few years, been overtaken by important changes. Not the least important of these changes has been our adoption, in the Defence White Paper, of a defence policy which defines a rigorous national strategy for Australia to achieve a self-reliant defence posture. The Minister believes that our self-reliant defence policy is well understood by our regional neighbours as an effective and achievable program to meet our military needs. In particular, he found rather less inclination among our neighbours than among people at home to confuse self-reliance with isolationism. This confusion is evident among many who have commented on the Dibb Review and the White Paper. Until it is understood that self-reliance requires, rather than precludes, active defence relations with our neighbours, the rationale of our regional defence cooperation will not be clear. When people get confused about Australia's strategic circumstances, it is usually because they are applying the principles of the 1930s to the problems of the 1980s. In the 1930s, Australians had a stark choice. Australia could either commit itself to the imperial system of naval defence, or it could develop land and air forces to defend the continent. Our strategic and financial circumstances enforced a clear choice between alliance and isolationism. This view of our defence position persisted into the 1960s and 1970s in the debate over forward defence versus Fortress Australia. But while the dilemma may have been genuine in the 1930s, it was much less clear in the 1960s. Today it is meaningless. With careful planning, Australia can now maintain a defence force which can both defend our territories and approaches, and contribute to the security of our broader region. Australia no longer needs to make a choice between self-reliance on the one hand and our network of alliances and regional associations on the other. We have the capacity-and indeed the requirement-to do both. The lessons of history, geography and commonsense all show that Australia's defence posture cannot ignore the strategic circumstances of our neighbourhood. Even if we wanted to, we have no choice but to develop and maintain our own defence links with our neighbours as an essential aspect of our self-reliant defence posture. We can no longer see our defence role in our region simply as an adjunct to our broader alliances. But that is no longer acceptable to us or to our allies, who will increasingly look to us to play a larger role in the region as their own resources shrink. Nor is it acceptable to our neighbours, who look to Australia to play an independent role in our region commensurate with our size and resources. Our self-reliant defence posture is essential to our role in the strategic affairs of our region, as it is also to our broader alliances. It is very important to understand what that means in purely military terms. The defence force structure which we have adopted in the White Paper as a blueprint for the Australian Defence Force provides Australia with an unprecedented capability to deploy military forces throughout our region and to co-operate with our neighbours in support of our security. The development of Australia's self-reliant defence capabilities provides great opportunities. Our capacity for security co-operation in our region will expand as we increase our fleet with long-range ships, and submarines, provide the latest combat aircraft with airborne refuelling, improve surveillance capabilities, relocate major facilities closer to our neighbours in the north and west of Australia, and increase the firepower, mobility and deployability of our ground forces. This is no accident. We regard it as an essential element of Australia's defence posture that the capabilities we develop to provide for our own defence should also provide us with the capability to play our part in maintaining regional security. This has been obscured by a misunderstanding about the geographical delineation of our strategic interests. Our area of direct military interest, defined in the Dibb Review as extending 4,000 miles from east to west and 3,000 miles from north to south, identifies the area in which Australia must be able to exert-independently-decisive military power. The clear definition of our area of direct military interest is central to decisions about the sorts of military capabilities we need to develop. But the area of direct military interest does not circumscribe the regions in which Australia recognises that it has strategic interests, nor does it circumscribe the areas in which we recognise the need to develop defence co-operation with neighbours to achieve shared strategic goals. Indeed, we have described a much larger area of broad strategic interest, covering one-quarter of the earth's surface and including all the nations of South East Asia and the South West Pacific. Within this area of broad strategic interest we intend to develop and maintain defence relations, co-operate in the development of defence capabilities, and undertake military deployments, visits and exercises with our regional neighbours. As I have said, one of the major aims of the Minister's recent visits was to learn how our neighbours perceive strategic developments in our region. He was struck by the much more balanced discussion of strategic issues among our neighbours than is often seen here. In Australia the strategic circumstances of our region are often discussed in a very negative way-in terms of identifying prospective military threats to Australia. As an illustration of the prevalence of vague and simplistic threat perceptions that underlie this approach, I need only point to the reaction in some circles to last year's unacceptable political developments in Fiji. In response to these developments, some commentators called for a revision of Australia's defence policy. What was evident once again was a failure to distinguish between events we do not like and those which threaten our security. The point is that with no clear cut understanding of these distinctions we miss the appropriate political-military response. It is particularly important that we get that distinction right when we examine issues such as those arising from the Soviet position in Cam Ranh Bay. History is replete with examples of the dangers of allowing this thinking to go unchallenged. Defence policy-makers and politicians since the war have often been led astray by responding to suggested threats to our national security based on inadequate strategic appreciations. The results have been disastrous to effective defence policy making. This point is particularly apposite in considering the kind of defence relations we should pursue with countries in our region of broader strategic interest. We are indeed fortunate in that we share a region with neighbours with whom we have many common strategic perspectives. We recognise, however, that the region is continually changing and becoming more complex. Greater interest is being shown in the South Pacific by external powers than previously. We have all been disappointed by the political upheavals in Fiji and continued instability in the Philippines. South Pacific island countries are keenly aware of their economic vulnerability and this will continue to provide opportunities for countries with interests inimical to our own. At the same time, in South East Asia a number of our regional neighbours are developing, on a national basis, increasingly sophisticated military capabilities for external defence. None of these developments in our region of broader strategic interest directly threatens our own security. But they demand that we adjust our thinking and cooperative activities to contemporary change. Regional strategic developments require careful analysis so that they are understood accurately. This is fundamental. For too long, the Australian public has been served up a distorted analysis of events in our region by those who are imbued with the shibboleths of past eras of strategic thinking. The notion that Australia has a role to play as `regional policeman' in South East Asia and the South Pacific is the prime example of this outdated thinking. Those who advocate that Australia should still play such a role, totally neglect to consider that since the 1950s and 1960s the nations of South East Asia have impressed the world by the way they have met the challenges of political and economic development. As part of that extraordinary development, the nations of the region have developed their own armed forces to the point where they no longer look primarily to others to provide for their own defence. In the South Pacific, the island groups have developed into independent nations with their own strategic perceptions and concerns. With the exception of the French territories and American Samoa, all of the island countries have moved from their former dependent colonial status to full independence or to political self-determination. More recently we have seen the rise of indigenous nationalism as the island states have developed their own and, in many cases, regional approaches to dealing with domestic and international issues. As the Minister noted in his statement in February last year, these processes are inevitable and reflect the growing international self-confidence and self-reliance of the island states. In these circumstances, it would be entirely inappropriate and counter-productive for Australia to seek to impose its will on regional countries. Australia's role and its only proper role, is to act as a partner with our regional neighbours. In pursuing this role, we have to recognise that it is a complex process, which requires the balancing of a diverse range of considerations. With some nations in our area of direct military interest we have long-established defence relations going back many decades. In others we have just begun to develop defence relations with newly-independent nations. In the case of our long-established defence relations with some countries of South East Asia, the challenge is to adapt those relations to changing circumstances. The changes on both sides make some of the old forms of co-operation outdated, while opening many new opportunities in other areas. Our aim in adapting to these changes with our South East Asian partners has been to preserve as much as possible of the underlying political framework of co-operation, leaving us free to reshape the actual content of co-operation as much as necessary. Perhaps the clearest example of this process is the evolution of our participation with Malaysia and Singapore in the Five Power Defence Arrangements. The FPDA were established in 1971 between Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to support the security of Malaysia and Singapore after the withdrawal of British forces east of Suez. Australia believes that the FPDA remain relevant to our objective of promoting regional stability and security, and we continue to support them. But the material form of our support will soon change in some important ways. Next month, RAAF FA18 Hornet fighter-attack aircraft will deploy to Butterworth for the first time to coincide with the return to Australia of the Mirages before being withdrawn from service. Under the FPDA's integrated air defence system, Australia has based Mirage aircraft at Butterworth in Malaysia for many years. This has been a substantial commitment, involving up to two-thirds of our total fighter strength. The Mirage is now being replaced in the RAAF by the FA18. The introduction of the FA18 has required us to re-examine all aspects of our operations and deployments, including the basing of aircraft at Butterworth. We have concluded that the enormous capabilities of the Hornets could most effectively be exploited by basing all aircraft in Australia, and deploying them on rotation to bases in Malaysia and Singapore. The technical reasons for that decision are important to understand. Firstly, the FA18 requires less frequent maintenance than the Mirage, which means that it can operate for much longer periods away from its support base. On the other hand, the infrastructure required to maintain the FA18 when this is required is much greater than for the Mirage, because the new aircraft is considerably more sophisticated and capable. Taken together, these two factors mean that it is much more efficient to centralise maintenance and other support facilities for the FA18, than to disperse those facilities around the different areas where the aircraft will be operating. This policy of centralising support facilities does not restrict the scope of operations of the FA18, because it is much more easily deployed over long distances than the Mirage. It has much longer range, and it can be refuelled in the air. This means that an FA18 can be deployed from Australia to South East Asia in four hours-and it can then stay there without elaborate support for a significant time. Lastly, we are developing a major base for the FA18s at Tindal near Katherine in the Northern Territory. Tindal is as close to Singapore as it is to Canberra. So the FA18s will never be far away from South East Asia. These then are the reasons why we have decided, in consultation with the Malaysian and Singaporean governments, to alter the basis of our contribution to the air defence of this area when the FA18s are introduced. Instead of basing aircraft in Malaysia permanently, squadrons of FA18s will deploy to Malaysia and Singapore for a total of at least 16 weeks of the year. We will also commence rotational deployments of our F111 long-range strike aircraft to Malaysia and Singapore. It is most important to understand that our decision to move from permanent basing of aircraft in Malaysia to rotational deployments from Australia is based on the technical characteristics and capabilities of our new aircraft, and is aimed at maximising the contribution these aircraft make to the security of the region. A significant presence of several hundred Australian Defence Force personnel, including an army rifle company, will be maintained at Butterworth to support these deployments and other activities continuing there. The Government believes that this program clearly demonstrates our continuing willingness to commit a significant proportion of our air force to the support of regional security through the integrated air defence system. We also believe that the new arrangements will allow fuller and more appropriate co-operation with the growing capabilities and expertise of the Malaysian and Singaporean air forces. These will not be our only aircraft deployments to this region. We will maintain a program of continuous rotational deployment of P3C long-range maritime patrol aircraft through Butterworth. Malaysia's and our own surveillance of the region provides a valuable contribution to regional surveillance efforts by monitoring the busy sea-ways of the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca. Across the whole spectrum of our defence co-operation in South East Asia, we are adapting to the growing sophistication of the defence forces of our partners. This has been reflected in a growing trend away from the old equipment-based programs in which Australia would supply the hardware and training to develop a distinct capability within another nation's defence force. That sort of program is no longer appropriate. Instead the emphasis is on service-to-service training and exchanges of personnel, with much greater scope for mutual benefit both to our neighbours' defence forces and our own. The nature of our defence activities in South East Asia is also changing in the light of changes in our naval forces. We will expand our surface fleet with the introduction of new frigates and submarines. The progressive transfer of half the fleet from their present base in Sydney to Western Australia significantly enhances the Navy's ability to deploy to South East Asia. While the Minister was in South East Asia last year he proposed to the governments of Malaysia and Singapore that Australia would, if they agreed, establish a pattern of rotational deployments to our Five Power Defence Arrangements partners in the region. This proposal received the support of both governments. The deployments will begin soon, and the rotational pattern will be fully established next year. We will also substantially increase our naval contribution to the region by providing what will be in effect the continuous presence of a major combatant of the Australian Navy in South East Asian waters. While there, the Australian ships will train and exercise with regional navies, to the benefit of both. Other new opportunities also arose during his visit to expand defence co-operation in the region. In Bangkok it was agreed to establish a series of combined exercises in Thailand by Australian and Thai army units at company level. This will add a new dimension to our defence co-operation with Thailand. His visit to Brunei, the first by an Australian Defence Minister, gave him an opportunity to review the direction of our defence relationship with that country. We regard Brunei as an important member of our region, and are keen to develop our defence relationship with them. We have been pleased to see that our defence relations with Brunei have developed substantially since Brunei's independence four years ago. Activities have focused on Royal Brunei Armed Forces training and exercising in Australia, but we hope to expand that with ADF visits to Brunei and other activities. Although we have an increasingly substantial program of defence activities with regional countries, we have been disappointed to see some decline in the level of our co-operative activities with Indonesia. We regard Indonesia as a valuable security partner and continue to place importance on the maintenance of sound and constructive defence relations. I would like to see our defence contacts broadened beyond the former focus on materiel-based projects towards a range of other activities such as exercises, senior level visits and personnel exchanges, which will lead to a mature and reciprocal relationship appropriate to two neighbouring countries. Such cooperation must, of course, be a two-way process and on the basis of mutual respect for the fundamental features of our respective social and political systems. This year we will spend $18m on defence cooperation with South East Asian nations. Generally in South East Asia we remain a welcome partner. We must be sensitive to the fact that our friends have occasional differences in international outlook with us and we must be careful to ensure that our cooperation is seen in a regional context. We must also recognise that with developments in the defence forces of the countries of South East Asia our cooperation is very much of mutual benefit. Our defence relations with PNG fall into a special category. Australia's defence links with PNG have their historic origins in the period of Australian administration of that country, and the establishment of the Pacific Island Regiment under Australian leadership. The strength of our defence cooperation is based on that common historical experience and the abiding strategic importance of PNG for Australian security. Since independence, Australia has maintained a large defence cooperation programme with PNG. In recent years that program has accounted for around half of our entire defence cooperation effort, costing over $20m. This year our defence cooperation programme with PNG totals $23m. In the years immediately following independence in 1975, our defence cooperation with PNG tended to reflect the colonial defence arrangements before independence. In the mid-1970s there were still some 500 Australian service personnel on loan to the PNG defence force integrated into all areas of PNGDF activities. Since then Papua New Guinea, has evolved an independent defence force drawing on the skills and resources of the PNG people. As the PNGDF has evolved, our defence co-operation program has evolved with it. Australian service personnel integrated into the PNGDF have been largely replaced by PNG nationals, and the focus of our efforts has moved to training, advisory and materiel assistance. This process of evolution from a colonial defence relationship was finally concluded late last year with the signature by our two Prime Ministers of the joint declaration of principles. That document includes clauses on defence which mark the beginning of a new phase of our defence relationship with PNG. Those clauses mark the maturing of our defence relationship to a full and equal partnership between sovereign nations. Importantly, the defence section of the joint declaration begins with the recognition that Australia and PNG are each responsible for their own defence. Honourable senators will recall that other clauses relate to important elements of our defence cooperation activities, while the last clause expresses our intention to consult at the request of either party in the event of external armed attack which threatens the national sovereignty of either country. I regard the defence section of the joint declaration as an important statement of our enduring support for the security of PNG, and as a significant symbol of the growth of our defence relationship to full maturity. As such the declaration is a credit to the PNG Government which initiated it. The PNG Government's defence initiatives have not been limited to the diplomatic front. They have developed a series of policies to which we are glad to respond in formulating our cooperative programs. One example is the PNGDF's engineering activity. Prime Minister Wingti and his Defence Minister, Mr Pokasui, are keen to expand the role of the PNGDF in such activities. The ADF has a long involvement in engineering in PNG, for example in the long term deployment of an army engineering unit to Mendi. While the Minister was in PNG last year the expansion of our engineering assistance to the PNGDF was raised, and it was agreed that we would work in conjunction with the PNGDF on an increased range of engineering tasks for infrastructure development. Another important initiative arising from his visit is our agreement to upgrade the facilities of the Papua New Guinea defence force patrol boat base at Manus Island. That facility has clear importance to the significant work done by the PNG defence force maritime component in resources surveillance. The improved facilities will allow us to deploy, for extended periods, Royal Australian Navy patrol boats to Manus Island and the Department of Defence is currently examining the operational aspects of these deployments. This initiative, combined with increased deployments of Royal Australian Air Force long range maritime patrol aircraft to cover the northern area of PNG's exclusive economic zone will ensure that our cooperative effort in maritime surveillance will be extensive and efficient. These initiatives are being taken against the background of a very large and diverse defence cooperation relationship which includes an annual series of combined exercises, training in Australia for over 200 PNGDF personnel each year, and a wide range of in-country technical and advisory support, consultancy and project activity. In recent years we have been glad to see a number of other countries, particularly the US and NZ, develop their own defence relationships with PNG. We welcome this diversification of PNG's defence cooperation to include our allies. It provides valuable additional assistance to the PNGDF, and is clear evidence of the growing maturity of PNG's international defence relationships. At the start of this speech I spoke of the great changes in our region which have required us to restructure our defence relations. Of those changes none has been greater than the emergence, over the past 15 years, of a complex community of independent nations in the South West Pacific. In historical terms the creation of this community is very recent. We in Australia are only now coming to know the individual countries which have appeared to our north and east as distinctive entities, with separate traditions, resources, and policies. Last year in a statement to the House the Minister announced that we would be placing a high priority on developing these defence relations-indeed that we would give them the same priority as we give to our long-standing defence relations with PNG and the nations of South East Asia. In the defence area we are only beginning to establish relations with the island nations. His visit to the Solomons, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu last year was the first by any Australian Defence Minister to any of these countries. But we have made a very good start. We have responded to the clearly-expressed priorities of the island nations by undertaking, in cooperation with New Zealand, an integrated approach to helping the island states to exercise the most fundamental element of nationhood-sovereign control of their lands and waters. Last year's events in Fiji have the potential to pose long term problems for our cooperative defence activities in the South Pacific, especially our longer term objective of promoting a network for regional maritime surveillance. Defence cooperation with Fiji remains suspended and its resumption is dependent on future developments in Fiji. In recognition of the important interests we share with Fiji, the Government will continue to keep that relationship under review. The central pillar of our effort to assist the South West Pacific nations is of course the Pacific patrol boat program. Three boats have now been handed over, two to PNG and one to Vanuatu. This year boats will be presented to Western Samoa, the Solomons and PNG. We have been pleased by the way the boats have been received, and by the way they are being put into service. In Vanuatu, for example, the Government has been so impressed with the work the boat has been doing that it has asked that we send up a RAN patrol boat to stand in while the RVS Tokoro returns to Townsville for scheduled maintenance. We have been delighted to respond, and HMAS Cessnock will spend over six weeks in Vanuatu. As the program has progressed we are improving the boat and the package of training and support which goes with it. For example, learning from our early experience, we have decided from now on to install airconditioning in the Pacific patrol boats, and to retrofit it to those already delivered. We are also taking a flexible attitude to the specific needs of different recipients of the boat. For example, the Cook Islands has asked us to look at installing extra freezer capability in their boat, and we have been glad to respond. Vanuatu has asked for some armament to be fitted, and that has been done. In view of their special budgetary problems, Kiribati and Tuvalu have asked us to look at ways of extending the support package for the Pacific patrol boat to enable them to join the program. Again, we have agreed to see what we can do. One of the most important elements of the PPB programme is the deployment of RAN officers and technical experts for extended periods to each participating country to assist in establishing and operating these vessels. These are the men who will make the PPB program work, and they are doing an outstanding job. They are laying important foundations of goodwill and competence upon which our defence relations with these countries will be built. Next month the Department of Defence, in association with the New Zealand Department of Defence and the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency, is sponsoring a maritime surveillance seminar in which all member countries of the South Pacific Forum will participate. The Seminar will discuss operation and procedural aspects of maritime surveillance activities in the region. It will provide an opportunity for regional country representatives to gain insight into the policies and operations of other regional countries and will allow participants to exchange views on these developments. During the Minister's visit to the South Pacific, island leaders expressed their appreciation of our cooperative defence activities and particularly of our Royal Australian Air Force long range maritime patrol flights, which have been increased, and our Royal Australian Navy ship visits. As more Pacific patrol boats are brought into service by regional countries, increased opportunities will be taken by the Royal Australian Navy to exercise with the Pacific patrol boats. The progress that has been achieved to date in this area puts us closer to the realisation of our objective to assist regional maritime cooperation and eventually to establish a network for regional maritime surveillance based on cooperation and compatible national efforts. As a further step towards this objective, the Minister announced during his visit to the Solomon Islands that he would have his Department examine the possibility of making available a maritime surveillance aircraft to be at the disposal of Forum Island countries to meet their immediate surveillance needs. Other elements of our defence cooperation with South West Pacific nations include civil engineering projects, often in remote locations, and assistance with communications. The ADF also gives important assistance to our South West Pacific neighbours in national emergencies like cyclones. This assistance is very important, and much appreciated. This year we have budgeted $16m for defence cooperation in the South West Pacific. If anyone should entertain any doubts about the importance of the nations in our region to Australia's own security, I would recommend them to visit, as the Minister did late last year, the islands of Guadalcanal and Singapore. Guadalcanal is now the site of the capital of the Solomons, Honiara, and a visit there can be recommended to anyone for its charm and peace. But no one with a sense of history can go there and not be awed by the immediacy of the great battle that was fought there 45 years ago this year. That battle was a battle for Australia, and Australians fought in it-as the wreck of HMAS Canberra lying in Ironbottom Sound, attests. Singapore has, if anything, an even starker strategic message for Australians. The fall of Singapore in February 1942 was the darkest moment Australia has known in 200 years, and underlined unambiguously that Australia's security is tied to the security of South East Asia. But equally a visit to these places today teaches that we must adapt our defence cooperation with our neighbours to the changes in our region. The policies of the 1950s will serve us poorly in the 1990s. I believe the policies we are adopting and which I have sketched to the House today, will serve us well in promoting the security of our region through cooperation activities with our neighbours, and I commend them to the Senate. Senator ROBERT RAY —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.10) —Had this statement, entitled `Self-Reliance and Co-operation: Australia's Regional Defence Policy', been read to the Senate and set to music, we would have heard the tinkling of music boxes in the background playing nursery rhymes, because basically that is what this document is all about. It is most remarkable not for what it says but for what it does not say about important issues of military concern to Australia. First of all, let me go through some of the issues that the paper discusses. Its failings are exemplified by the fact that it fails to recognise the steadily declining influence of Australia in recent years in the South West Pacific and the Pacific region generally. This Government has adopted an introspective attitude in respect of defence matters; it is concerned only with the defence of Australian territories. The statement speaks little of the problems in the broader area of the Pacific region, which I will come to a little later. We find this approach of the Government a wide divergence of attitudes in the area of foreign affairs and the area of defence. Although we have a vast shortage of money to be spent on defence for the Pacific region, we find that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, is running around Africa dishing out large sums of money, totalling altogether some $100m, for the purpose of currying favour in that arena. Yet for the whole of the Pacific area, our most vital strategic area around Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, the Solomons and the broader areas around the micro-states of the Pacific, we have been able to find only a measly $58m in this current year. In fact, we have even cut back on our aid this year to Papua New Guinea. We find money going instead to, for example, no less a country than Mozambique in Africa. This is evidence of our lack of capacity to establish any kind of reach-out ability in the Pacific region. Over the last 12 months we have all observed some very important, significant and somewhat worrying changes in the government of the island state of Fiji-right in our own sphere of influence in this area of the Pacific. Yet our Government could not put into the water one landing craft able to undertake any activity that might have been required in that area because of this Government's total inability to find sufficient funds to equip our forces properly. Is it any wonder that the countries of this area are not full of confidence in the Australian Government's attitude? They know that they need assistance, they want assistance from Australia, but they also know that under the Hawke Labor Government this country is not capable of delivering that assistance. Senator Teague —How many members of the Government are opposite, Senator? Senator MESSNER —I can count two. Australia, of course, is obviously part of the future of South East Asia and of the Pacific region. Yet our whole effort, dedicated to facilitating the cooperation of our defence forces with the nations in this part of the world, is minimal. I will return to that point a little later, because it is mentioned in somewhat interesting terms in a latter part of the statement just put down by the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray). Those countries are reading the signs that Australia is simply not serious about defending this part of the world. I repeat: Mr Hayden is taking his cheque book off to Africa and spending $100m of Australia's money while we cannot even find more than $50m-odd to promote defence co-operation with our near neighbours. That is against the background of some of the serious omissions from the statement. There is not one word here about the vast developments of the Soviet navy in the Pacific, about the developments of fishing contracts with some of the micro-states of the Pacific region or about what is happening in Vietnam or Kampuchea and the tensions developing in that area of the world. There is one word, however, about the base at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam that has been established as a southern port for the Soviet navy-one word, that is all. Cam Ranh Bay is mentioned but no conclusion is drawn, no attention is drawn to its existence and no comment is made on the abilities or otherwise and capacity of the Soviet navy to use that base more effectively than its current forces in Vladivostok further to the north. Clearly the existence and development of the Soviet navy in the Pacific and Indian oceans has been of the greatest concern to our allies the United States (US) and should be of the greatest concern to this Government. However, in this so-called statement, this nursery rhyme of a statement, we find not one word about that problem. Let us also consider the developments in the Philippines. We have all known of the seething changes there in the last two years as a result of the change of government from the Marcos regime to the current regime. Yet underlying all this there has been speculation about the changes that may occur in the existence of US bases in the Philippines. Those bases at Clark Field and Subic Bay are vital to the total defence co-operation between the United States and this country in this part of the world. Speculation has existed about the future of those bases. But there is not one word, no comment whatsoever, in this paper about what the Government considers about any possible developments in that area which may affect Australia's strategic thinking. Yet speculation is building that some change to US bases in the Philippines may be occurring as a result of Department of Defense cutbacks in expenditure in the United States, brought about by the very high budget deficit of the United States and its growing severe problems. We hear not one word about that. I find it absolutely remarkable that the Australian Government, facing these challenges in this part of the world, is not prepared to tell us what it is thinking and how it is developing policies in this area to encompass these difficulties that obviously are lying in the path. Australia has to face facts in the defence arena. It is a huge country, a large land mass, as we all know, with a very small population. Yet we are surrounded by countries in the reverse situation, with large populations but relatively small land masses to defend. We need to work, therefore, on the development of our relationships with those countries, with the Indonesians, Malaysians, Filipinos and so on. Indonesia perhaps is a classic example of the way we should be addressing these problems. Do we in the Senate know, does the Government admit-does it say it anywhere-that we do not have one student from the Indonesian armed forces in our staff colleges? Nor have we had any for the last two years. Yet in previous times we encouraged that kind of cooperation, liaison and interrelationship with our immediate neighbours, for our mutual benefit. We see also that the Australian Defence Force is largely underutilised. We could be using it to assist those countries in our near north and the Pacific to build roads, bridges and infrastructure, given our capacity to do so with our Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), Royal Australian Navy and Army personnel. But we do not develop that capacity, which would be a very important training and information seeking arm if we get involved in that exercise. We should be encouraging more joint exercises with the nations in our immediate vicinity but, again, there is no mention of that in this statement. We are too timid to talk about it. Maybe it is because Mr Hayden, the Foreign Minister, has greater sway over the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, in this matter. Instead, we get travel talk and nursery rhymes. The ministerial statement talks about the force structure that is being developed from the recommendations that came down in the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities about 18 months ago. It is claimed that this is a plan which is unique to Australia's defence and strategic circumstances. In about 1983-84, Mr Beazley or his predecessor in defence said, `Yes, we are going to maintain a growth rate in real terms of expenditure on defence of 3 per cent'. Ever since the Government made that statement there has been a fall in our expenditure; in fact, the current financial year sees a fall of one per cent in Australian expenditure on defence. This will be affected by the blowing out of the cost of the new submarine contract and the well-known difficulties with the development of the frigate contract, which will absorb more and more money in the future at the expense of other parts of the Defence Force. This statement lacks substance; it is merely a series of motherhood statements with no new initiatives whatsoever. Among the minor comments which sound like initiatives is the reference to the rotating of the new Hornet aeroplane with its deployment to Singapore and Malaysia. This is a backward step, given the reduction of the Mirage squadron presently situated in Butterworth to a force on a rotational basis. It will fill only a 16-week period throughout any calendar year in those two areas. We are also, apparently, going to maintain the Orion force, the submarine reconnaisance, through Butterworth; but this is something that we have already heard about. It is nothing new as far as we are concerned. As a result of this statement, let us look at some of the things we intend to do in Thailand. We see that there will be more exercises with Thai forces. It is now five years since this Government came to power and in that time we have not had one exercise with those forces in that part of the world. This shows how much credence we can give to the statements from the Minister-none at all. There is a reference in the statement-no more-to the use of the PC3s, the Orions, over New Guinea and its approaches. Where are the forces coming from to undertake that kind of work? There are no explanations and no statement has been made as to the future direction; there is just some kind of broad commitment which, in the end, does not amount to any kind of commitment at all. All these things are prefaced with maybes and considerations of future developments. The largest capital expenditure program in history is apparently being undermined by cost overruns and by expenditure and control problems with these various projects. We read of increases which the Government has cleverly devised from the use of figures to demonstrate that somehow the Defence Force is increasing its numbers, but the fact is that in the most important areas of officer services, pilots in the Air Force and so on, there actually has been a decline in the number of these very well trained officers and those other people whom the Defence Force mainly relies upon. In the last six months 117 pilots have resigned from the RAAF. If we have read the newspapers of recent days we would find it extraordinarily difficult to understand how the Air Force can keep its new force of FA18 aircraft in the air because it is simply not training pilots quickly enough for them to be able to take over the positions of these people who are resigning. These pilots, of course, are taking up more lucrative positions in private commercial aviation. Some are working with Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, others with Qantas Airways Ltd, and so on. One thing that is helping them along the way is the threat over superannuation that they may or may not get as members of the Royal Australian Air Force. All this has come at a time when the word on the Government's lips in defence is supposed to be self-sufficiency, but it is just another name for introspection. What we should be doing is looking outward towards the Pacific and Indian Oceans and developing a strategy based on that, despite the Government's policy of withdrawal and isolation. The Government admits in the statement that the allies are looking to us to play a larger role. Then they are served up this little bit. What, for instance, will we be doing with airborne refuelling? We have talked about that, and heard that talked about, for quite some time now. When is it coming for the F111s? We have not heard any more about that. What about improving surveillance? It is a shambles, as we all know. We have no airborne radar. The Jindalee is still 10 years away, yet the hours for the PC3s, the Orion force, carrying out its activities over the Indian Ocean and the northern approaches, have been reduced from 1,200 to 700. This is a sign of increased surveillance, of improvements in our capacity, the development of confidence with our near neighbours? The Government must be joking. Our area of direct military interest is defined in this paper as a general area of 7,000 kilometres by 5,000 kilometres. In the paper the Government says that we must be able to project independent, comprehensive military power in order to provide for our direct security. That is a vast area, as all honourable senators will admit. Yet, the Government, in this statement, or in any other statement, will not define the countries or land masses it is designed to cover. The Government just speaks broadly about a square or rectangle across the world's maps and does not speak at all about our strategic interests in respect of individual areas that might be encompassed by it. We obviously cannot establish a clear view of what the Government's strategic thinking is when it will not get down to tintacks and tell us exactly what it has in mind, and this is against the background, as I mentioned earlier, that we could not even find the capacity to land troops in Fiji if we had had to do so last year. It is clear that this gross overgeneralisation of our situation in this country that the forces immediately in our vicinity somehow are all looking to us and have confidence in the Australian development of its defence forces is absolute nonsense. They are all screaming for help. The expenditure of many of them on defence is underdeveloped and they are clearly looking to Australia. The best example we can point to to show the nature and depth of the problem is Papua New Guinea which is already starting to establish military contacts with both New Zealand and the United States of America. That clearly does not demonstrate clear confidence in Australia in this part of the world, yet we are spending $100m in Africa instead of paying attention to our immediate needs in our own part of the world. We are committed-and it is not mentioned too much-to some expansion of our defence forces, in our surface fleet with frigates and our underwater fleet with new submarines. The point about this, of course, is that that is merely a replacement of craft already in existence; they are not new additions to our force. Consequently, nations in this vicinity have no confidence at all as to where we might be headed. We are spending $23m in Papua New Guinea, yet Papua New Guinea is vital to the future defence of this nation. Why is it that we continue under this Government to spend $100m in Africa? We should be doing more about Manus Island. Some reference is made to that in this statement, but very little. We need to increase our effort in trying to train the forces of countries in our immediate vicinity. We need to be providing engineering assistance to those nations nearby, and we have a capacity to do that. Above all, we should be expanding our joint exercise program with those foreign nations. I believe the future rests on about three main points. The first is that we need to be less concerned about allocating money to countries outside of our region, such as those in Africa, and more concerned about increasing expenditure and developing assistance to areas in our immediate region. The expansion of our defence co-operation program is really the basis of the development of a truly effective defence force in this part of the world. We must make more and greater use of our Defence Force capacity, both from the point of view of self-interest and in order to provide greater help for our allies and potential allies in this part of the world. All we can really conclude about this statement is that it is a lot of twaddle. It is full of nursery rhymes. It suggests no real initiative. Had the Minister for Home Affairs presented a statement that said that the Government intended to increase expenditure in this part of the world and reduce expenditure in Africa and had he provided us with some definite idea of the future directions of the Government's strategic thinking, we would have a clear view of the Defence Force arrangements the Government had under consideration. This statement offers us nothing. Not one extra cent is to be spent on new developments in these areas. Is it any wonder that countries in this region continue to ignore us and our defence capabilities? I conclude by referring to a couple of statements made on pages 26 and 27 of the statement which I believe characterise the level of thinking of, and the Mickey Mouse approach adopted by, the Government in this statement. Let us look at what has been put down as one of the major expenditure items designed to assist development of co-operation in the defence arena. On page 27 of the statement, this sentence appears: For example, learning from our early experiences, we have decided from now on to install air-conditioning in the Pacific patrol boats, and to retrofit it to those already delivered. That will be a great step forward in the establishment and development of our strategic interest and the capacity of our forces in this part of the world. The second sentence to which I draw attention is this, and this is a real doozey: We are also taking a flexible attitude to the specific needs of different recipients of the boat. That refers to the boats being given to some nations in this area. The statement continues: For example, the Cook Islands has asked us to look at installing extra freezer capability in their boat, and we have been glad to respond. This document, which is supposed to be taken seriously, is trying to give us some sort of idea of the strategic thinking of this Government in this area of the world. With the Soviet navy at our doorstep operating out of Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam, with tensions developing in Vietnam and Kampuchea, our magnificent response in terms of expenditure on equipment and the development of co-operation with the nations in this area is to ensure that the Cook Islands boat is fitted with a freezer and that air-conditioning is installed in the patrol vessels that will operate in this area. That absolutely throws the focus onto the big issues that this country is addressing. Quite clearly this is the level of attention that this Government is paying to our defence forces. The Government is incompetent, it is hopeless, and it is time that it went. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(3.35) —I am glad that there are some aspects of the statement presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) with which I can agree, though I obviously take issue with the basic premise on which this defence statement rests, and that is the concept of self-reliance within the alliance framework. That is a contradiction in terms. I do not believe that we can be self-reliant and independent in our defence capabilities while we are involved in this alliance with the United States of America. That is not to say that we do not need regional agreements with countries in our own part of the world. Of course we do. I am glad that the Minister in his statement stresses the need to reject the views of those who still live in the era of forward defence or those who are alarmist in their predictions about invasion paranoias for this country. That is simply an excuse to argue for more equipment for their particular branch of the armed services. Such equipment represents a sort of Defence Force wish list. I have long argued for a greater understanding of our neighbours within the Asia-Pacific region. That position has also been taken by the Australian peace movement which has co-operated closely with the nuclear free and independent Pacific movement since it was set up in 1975 and the campaign for demilitarisation of the Indian Ocean. Paradoxically perhaps we have shared with this Government the views expressed in the 1981 report Threats to Australia's Security, their Nature and Probability, and the view that there is no invasion threat to Australia and that any country, other than the United States or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that wished to mount such an invasion would take at least five to 10 years to prepare for it. I believe that what Australia should be looking forward to is self-reliant defensive defence; that is, a genuine self-defence policy which does not involve Australia in buying very expensive and highly sophisticated equipment, particularly from the United States, which does not serve the defence needs of Australia but which suits our alliance partner very well indeed for the joint exercises in which we engage and the continual war games that we play with the United States defence forces, many of which have very little to do with the defence of Australia. That is particularly so when it is considered that many of them take place in the central Pacific area, they involve the United States nuclear navy chasing hunter-killer submarines and I believe they are not relevant to the defence of this part of the world. I recognise, however, that after 200 years of this great threat paranoia, which is still uppermost in the minds of many Australians, it is important that the Minister addresses this issue. A news poll conducted on 6 November last year indicated that 40 per cent of Australians still think Australia will face a military threat over the next 10 years, with Indonesia and the Soviet Union identified as the main likely sources of the threat. Australian National Opinion Polls conducted a poll on 23 January this year which showed that 73 per cent of those polled thought the most likely threat to Australia within the next 10 years would be from terrorism, 48 per cent thought it would come from small-scale raids, 28 per cent from attempted invasion and 20 per cent from nuclear war. Of course, there is no defence whatever against the latter, except to get rid of the weapons which could cause such devastation. I note, too, that the Minister expressed his disappointment with that poll that showed that 53 per cent of those surveyed still believe that Australia could not defend herself effectively. The same number identified self-reliance within an alliance framework as the main plan for defence at present, while 34 per cent chose primarily reliance on allies, presumably referring to the United States. Clearly the Government needs to continue with public education on this matter in order to sell its own self-reliance program. However, as I have already said, I would prefer it to be outside the alliance framework with the United States, and I believe that is a possibility. Also the Government must learn more about the south-west Pacific. There are indications that that has been happening. As the Minister stated, there have been many changes in the Pacific islands in the last few years. Yet it is still sad that so few Australians can ever identify most of these islands, let alone pronounce their names or know anything about their political systems or their security needs. My chief concern about his statement is that there is too much stress on military co-operation and no mention of other forms of co-operation, which I believe to be far more important than the sorts of things that the Minister is talking about. I am glad that there is an acknowledgment that South Pacific island countries perceive their security more in economic terms than in military terms. Indeed, the main threat they perceive is from the continued United States and French colonial presence, referred to by the Minister, along with French nuclear testing programs on Mururoa Atoll. Their economies are highly vulnerable. I am therefore puzzled why Australia chooses to increase its military aid to the South Pacific and decrease its economic aid. We cannot look at this defence statement in isolation from what is happening in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It is sad for many Australians who are particularly concerned about our relationships with our Asian and Pacific neighbours that we are choosing to increase military aid and to decrease economic aid. That is what our neighbours are calling out for more than anything else-their own economic independence and security. I fear that it is largely our obsession with East-West concerns at the expense of North-South perceptions of our island neighbours that results in this happening. This was clear at the time of the Soviet fishing deal with Kiribati, which Senator Messner has just referred to. These were fishing agreements. They were about the Soviet Union actually paying for the fish it was taking out of those waters instead of, as the American Tuna Boat Association had been doing for years, plundering, in fact stealing, those fish from the territorial waters of the Pacific island states. Kiribati is an island nation very few Australians had even heard of until the Soviets actually offered to pay for the fish they caught there. The American Government realised the damage that was being done to its strategic interests by the poaching of the American Tuna Boat Association and finally brought it into line but, even so, with a very miserly deal. Vanuatu also got a lot of hostility thrown in its direction for wanting to be economically self-sufficient as well as politically non-aligned. The Libyan threat was drummed up to pull Vanuatu into line. Both of these island nations have a population less than half the size of Canberra. There are others even smaller. Mercifully, most of them do not not even have armed forces that we feel we have to co-operate with. I find it particularly ironic that the patrol boats we are providing are mostly used to chase poaching American trawlers like the Jeanette Diana, which was caught and impounded by the Solomon Islands four years ago, or the one apprehended by Kiribati last year. Perhaps we should use our alleged special relationship with the United States Government to get it to put the economic security concerns of our neighbours above the profits of the American Tuna Boat Association's members and its lobby in Congress. Looking towards South East Asia, I note that the Minister refers to the developing military sophistication of many of the countries in that region but does not refer to the development of the national security state or the diversion of resources away from the poor into the hands of the military elite in these countries. If any honourable senators have ever visited the slums of Jakarta or Bangkok they might question the need for expensive planes like the F16s from the United States or the massive increase in military expenditure by Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and Brunei in the last 10 years. Between 1974 and 1983 Malaysia increased its defence expenditure by 159 per cent, while both Thailand and Singapore increased theirs by 145 per cent-enormous increases in military expenditure considering that most of their own people live in poverty stricken conditions. Brunei spent most of all after achieving independence but at least it has its oil wealth to pay for it. On the subject of South East Asia, I ask honourable senators to consider the plight of the people of Kampuchea, whose country is perhaps the poorest in the world and who are the victims of the East-West stand-off and great power politics when what they desperately need is development aid. Militarisation is a disease that affects both East and West. Both the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as China, bear a heavy responsibility for allowing the situation in Kampuchea to continue. Again, I feel that Australia could play an even more constructive role than the one we are already playing. The Kampuchean people acknowledge the fact that the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, has done a very good job in trying to bring sense into the region, in trying to achieve a non-military solution to the problems of Kampuchea. If we spent more on training our diplomats in foreign languages and negotiating skills than on buying expensive military hardware from the United States or other countries, we could achieve an even greater reputation as a peace-builder in the region of South East Asia. It is worth noting, while we are looking at figures in this statement, that in 1985 we spent only $21,400 in providing training in negotiating skills for our diplomats. We could spend our money much more constructively on something more positive than more military hardware, whether in terms of defence co-operation or for our own defence forces. In many of the countries of South East Asia and the South West Pacific region there are growing movements for social justice which are treated as subversive by the elites who use their security apparatus to crush them, as we have seen in Malaysia and Singapore in the last year. This is the national security state. I feel very loath that Australia is providing them with more military assistance, even if it is in training personnel rather than in defence equipment and military hardware because a lot of the training and hardware we are providing is used to oppress the people who are seeking justice in their own countries. I am also perplexed that Australia is supposed to double its defence exports, as we were told in the Cooksey report which appeared in December 1976 and which has not even been debated in this chamber. Cooksey suggested that we should double our defence exports as a way out of our balance of trade problems, with no questioning on the immorality of providing weapons to our neighbours so that they can oppress their own peoples. We should be moving away from equipment-based programs in South East Asia towards service-to-service training and exchanges of personnel but, even more importantly, considering security in non-military terms. For me, real security can best be promoted by people-to-people understanding, by increasing our level of economic aid where appropriate, by promoting understanding through cultural exchanges, by increasing the budget for Radio Australia instead of slashing it, and by learning Asian languages instead of European languages in order to promote understanding as well as for promoting business opportunities and for increased regional co-operation at a non-government organisation level rather than at a military level. Australians have a threat paranoia directed towards Asia because for so many years we have refused to acknowledge our real place in the world. Instead we have continued to see ourselves as a distant outpost of Europe and North America. If we are to spend money on promoting regional security, there are countless better ways to spend $18m in South East Asia, $16m in the South West Pacific and $23m in Papua New Guinea than some of the ways which have been suggested in this statement. We have to stop thinking of security in terms of military security and the East-West framework and realise that what really matters for the vast majority of people in the South West Pacific and South East Asia is economic security and thinking in the North-South framework in terms of development rather than fostering the regional arms race. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(3.48) —The Senate is debating `Self-Reliance and Cooperation: Australia's Regional Defence Policy', a statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). On one more matter we see the Australian Labor Party adopting Liberal-National Party philosophies. Only last week we debated a Bill to convert Australian Airlines to a public company to facilitate its sale so that we can start to engender some competition in Australia's internal airline system, which is a reversal of the Labor position of opposition to this move. When Labor came to power it repealed the Bill which the Liberal Party had put in place in 1981. Now we see-surprise, surprise!-that the Minister for Defence at last has discovered that Australia is not an island unto itself. He has moved on from a Mr Lange position, which he has been happy to embrace for the five years he and his colleagues have been in government, that somehow or other Australia could live in its own little isolationist corner of the world and be quite immune from what was going on around it. All of us on this side of the chamber are very grateful that the five years of the xenophobia, the isolationism and the latent pacifism of the Labor Party officially has been turned around. The Labor Party has recognised what we on this side have said all along-that the security of Australia rests with and is inextricably bound up with the peace and security of our neighbouring nations and that their peace and security is our cheapest and best form of defence. We are part of a region and we cannot be excised from it. That carries with it obligations to be conscious of the needs and sensitivities of other nations in the region and to look after their interests as much as we can. All we have seen from this Government is concern for people such as the Vietnamese Government and the Marxist regimes of Africa that have no relevance at all to Australia's direct security and cannot reinforce it in any way. The people who matter in the South Pacific and in the South East Asian area have been scorned and isolated by this Government. I have read the Minister's speech three times. It is a very poor statement, as Senator Messner said. As soon as one reads it one realises that the Minister is not talking to the Parliament; he is not talking to the Australian people; he is talking to the Australian Labor Party Caucus. That is why it is such an intellectually bankrupt speech. That is why such poor examples are in it: he is trying to convince his colleagues such as Senator Burns and Senator Jones that they really have to change their traditional way of thinking and to see Australia as part of the community of nations in our region. I hope that the changes that we see in the statement are permanent. There is a long way to go, a lot of development to be done, but at least it is a start. The statement unfortunately starts by quoting the Dibb report. There have been few more unfortunate publications foisted on Australia than the Dibb report. I think it is sad that the Dibb report is resurrected in this way. Outside Australia Dibb is seen as being the official spokesman and reflecting an official Government point of view. The Dibb report is a very inept document. It is very inept from a diplomatic point of view. It takes no cognisance of the sensibilities of our neighbours and of course it is quite juvenile in its military concepts. As I said at the time it was presented, it is an insular, isolationist doctrine. It did enormous damage to Australia's relationships in the South East Asian countries and in the South Pacific because anyone reading the Dibb report saw the strident isolationism. They saw that Australia was not concerned with the fate of Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, South East Asia, Fiji or anywhere else. They saw the doctrine portrayed in the report was of the sea air gap, the moat around Australia, the doctrine of denial and all those other juvenile military concepts which Dibb put forward. Our neighbours found the report very offensive. The report had a particular impact on Indonesia, our closest neighbour. Those of us who follow Indonesian affairs and who visit that country are conscious of the sensibilities and the need to develop good relations with Indonesia and to maintain them because, like it or not, Australia and Indonesia share the same part of the world: they will never move away. However great are the difficulties between us culturally, economically and on religious and other grounds, we have to get along. I believe we can get along if we put a bit of effort into our relationship with Indonesia and run things in a different way from the way in which we have run them under the Hayden foreign affairs business. Let me say when talking about Indonesian relationships that I think Australia is extremely fortunate to have the Ambassador we have there at present, who labours under enormous difficulties. The Hon. Bill Morrison ranks with the great ambassadors Australia has sent to Indonesia. I think historically some of our best ambassadors-people such as Tom Critchley, Dick Woolcott, and Mick Shann, to name just a few of them-have been brilliant practitioners of diplomatic skills for this country. I make no qualification to the capabilities of the present ambassador, Ambassador Morrison-I think he is a superb representative for us-but his job is made unnecessarily harder by the insensitivity of the present Government in this country. One of the themes that emerge from the statement with great emphasis is that somehow or other there is now a self-reliant capability in defence which has been developed by the Labor Party. That is a specious claim. The move towards self-reliance has been a progressive move in the Australian defence posture since the end of the Second World War. The significant turning points for that were the end of the Vietnam War and the Guam doctrine by Nixon. Governments before this Government had embarked on a path of developing self-sufficiency in the Australian Defence Force. It is quite erroneous for the Government to claim credit for this as a policy initiative of its making. That claim is no more true than the claim that it makes that it was the Labor Government under Whitlam that withdrew Australian forces from Vietnam. That decision was made by a Liberal Government about 18 months before the Labor Government came to power. It has taken a long while for the Labor Party to realise that the environment in which Australia is situated has changed, and changed dramatically. There is no doubt that this realisation is the factor that has led to the publication of the statement today talking about the need for regional support. We have only to look at New Zealand. It has destroyed the ANZUS agreement. It has gone off on its pacifist, isolationist path, which has had a significant impact on its ability to influence affairs in the diplomatic arena in the South Pacific. Somebody mentioned Vanuatu earlier. There are still instability and problems within that country. New Caledonia is still festering about self-government. There was the incident in Fiji last year. This Government had such a poor intelligence service that it not only did not know the first coup was on, it also did not know the second coup was on. The situation in New Caledonia looks very serious. There is an alliance between some Indonesians and some significant people in the New Guinea Government. I will return to this later. Obviously and demonstrably there has been a marked shift away from the closeness that existed between New Guinea and Australia. In Indonesia we are seeing a slightly different view of Indonesia's position in relation to the region. The way in which it moved with great rapidity to establish a commercial operation in Fiji after the coup showed that the Indonesians see themselves as having a role regionally that formerly was occupied by Australia in the South Pacific. We have the uncertainty of what is going on in the Philippines and the steady growth of the communist New People's Army there. In Malaysia there are religious struggles between the fundamental Muslim groups and the Malay community which do not bode well for stability in that country. Australia is one of the littoral states adjoining the Indian Ocean and we have seen the enormous and unexplained growth of the Indian Navy in recent years, a growth which is moving India into being a major maritime power for no apparent reason. With all of these changes in the region we have a clear sign that the United States influence, the main peacekeeping military force in the region, is diminishing. With the huge deficits in the United States economy now it simply cannot go on meeting the level of defence expenditure it has met in the past. Furthermore, there has been the resignation of Mr Weinberger, who was very aware of the growth of the Pacific rim countries and the need for a United States presence in the region, and his replacement by Mr Carlucci, who is far more interested in European affairs. One of the consequences which I want to talk about at some other time of the intermediate-range nuclear force agreement between the Soviets and the Americans means that the American focus will be more on Europe than on the Pacific through the next decade. This means that the need for an improved defence capability for Australia and the need for Australia to be able to project power militarily as well as diplomatically through the area is now considerably increased. The sad thing is that all these things were foreseeable. But the Labor Party is always five to 10 years behind the game. A lot of these things simply cannot be recovered. It does not matter how sincere the recanting of former ideas is, time is lost and human events go on. We must have the capability to project Australian military force around the region to support friendly governments. For example, we could have been asked to go to the aid of Fiji. If the democratically elected government had asked Australia to go there to reinforce its position in a military sense in the face of the coup, we would have been absolutely incapable of doing that. We should have been able to do it, but we advertised to the whole world that we could not do a damned thing about it. There had been such a run down of the Australian defence forces that we could not have met that charge if it had been asked of us. One of the things that it is pleasing to see in the statement is the recognition by the Minister on page 9 of the folly of trying to base a defence posture in this country on threat scenarios, and I hope he takes that to heart and applies it. The latter part of the statement deals with the need for alliances. I would have liked to have seen more devoted to the ANZUS alliance, which is not mentioned in this statement. It is still fundamentally the most important guarantee of stability, not in terms of Australian security but because the South East Asian nations derive enormous comfort from the fact that Australia and the United States of America are joined in a mutual defence pact. One of the pacts that is mentioned is the Five Power Defence Agreement, which involves Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. A particular point of reference in the paper is the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) station at Butterworth. The RAAF has maintained a unit at Butterworth. It was formerly of two fighter squadrons and it is now down to one, and in a few months time the remaining squadron is going to be withdrawn. The RAAF has been there since 1971. I argue that the Butterworth involvement has been of enormous value to Australia and that very few people in Australia appreciate the significance of it. I would argue for the retention on a permanent basis as opposed to the rotating system that is being proposed, of at least one squadron at Butterworth. The area is enormously important strategically. Butterworth is very close to the Strait of Malacca, which is probably the busiest waterway in the world. Most of the trade of the developing Pacific rim countries-for Japan, China, Taiwan, Thailand and the Philippines-with Europe comes through that narrow waterway between Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula. The politics of the region are very complex and Australia's presence there for nearly 20 years, or longer if we go back to the time of the Malay emergency, has been welcomed. Despite what might be thought around the halls of the Australian Labor Party the Australian military commitment in that region would be welcome to stay on. While we stay on there is no problem, but once we pull out it then becomes very difficult for us to go back without being seen as an intruding power going where our business does not necessarily take us. But while we are there we are welcomed. I think we should maintain our presence there. Not only is it an important part of the world in a political sense; it is important militarily. The United States has its major bases in the Philippines, in Subic Bay, but even if it loses those and moves further north and east it will have to transit that area to get to its facilities at Diego Garcia and move into the Persian Gulf if there is ever any need for the Americans to be committed there. The existence of an Australian military unit at Butterworth gives them protection on that flank against possible threat from Soviet intervention. It is also enormously important from an intelligence gathering point of view. All the Soviet traffic that goes into the Indian Ocean, coming out of its Pacific ports, passes through an area where it can be surveilled from Butterworth. Most importantly-I come to the psychological element-is the fact that Australia is prepared to put its money where its mouth is. Putting several hundred service men and women in an area to live with the Malaysians in the South East Asian community has enormous benefits to us when we look at the Five Power Defence Agreement. They can see the tangible effect of these policies when we actually go and live with them, and that cannot be underestimated. I cannot understand why the Minister argues for the FA18 aircraft not to be based there. He very correctly makes the point that these aircraft can be supported and have far lower maintenance requirements in the field than any other type of aircraft we have ever operated. That is perfectly true. That is one of the reasons we bought them. They are able to operate away from bases, to operate really from a bare base concept-just pump fuel into them and re-arm them and there is a very long time between servicing checks. That being so, there is no reason why a squadron-it need not be a full strength squadron of 18 aircraft; it could be a reduced squadron of 12-could not be based there permanently. It could be supported quite readily from the central maintenance facilities that have been established at Williamtown. Perversely, the Minister says that we cannot do that. If he is correct we are never going to be able to use those aircraft in a wartime situation when they will be deployed around Western Australia or the coast of the Northern Territory or somewhere around the Pacific region or the South East Asian area. If we cannot support them in peacetime, we are not going to be able to support them in time of an emergency. The argument simply will not stand up. The aircraft could be supported there, and I believe we should do that. One of the saddest parts of the statement is the neglect of the South Pacific area, which the statement tries to correct. Militarily and diplomatically we have neglected the South Pacific region because somehow or other it did not fit in with the great Marxist dream of the world community of nations that Mr Hayden had. He is far more ready to go to Vietnam and tell the people there how to solve their problems with Kampuchea, and enrage countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, than he is to look after the people like the Fijians or those on Kiribati. Nothing more dramatically demonstrates this inability to see our priorities correctly than the way he treats Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea has turned to the United States Army for training, and that would have been inconceivable 12 months ago. No-one would have believed that Papua New Guinea would have done that. It is against the whole tradition of the Pacific Islands Regiment, officered and trained by Australians since its inception, and the legacy of the Second World War, when the New Guinea troops were fighting alongside and in Australian units and acted as guides and supported them. We have had that close association for decades, and we now find that the Papua New Guinea Government has turned, as a matter of choice, to the United States Army for some help and advice. We had the mix-up with Indonesia, where General Murdani came in and gave a huge donation to Brigadier Ted Diro. It was an even bigger donation than the donation given to Mr Mick Young. It was absolutely staggering. There is no way that General Murdani gave that donation to Brigadier Ted Diro without knowing that it was to buy influence in a political sense, and there is no way that Diro accepted it without knowing the political implications of taking such a huge donation. The former Chief of the Defence Force, Brigadier Huai, was dismissed because he leaked in advance the agreement between Australia and Papua New Guinea on the defence alliance we have with Papua New Guinea. We see the intrusion of Indonesian power politics from the Indonesian military machine quite strongly in Papua New Guinea, and we see that only because Australia's influence now in Papua New Guinea is moving to a position of being of very little importance. That is a consequence of the policies of this Government. One of the things that have turned the New Guinea Government against us is the thoughtless way in which we have cut aid. We did say that we would reduce the aid program, but some of the things we have done to New Guinea have been done without any warning. We have chopped millions off grants to it. Naturally, it feels a bit friendless, disappointed and disillusioned. At the same time, as Senator Messner said, Mr Hayden is running around all of those tin-pot Marxist regimes in southern Africa giving away up to $100m for people who simply have no-- Senator Robert Ray —Who are you talking about? What are these tin-pot regimes? Senator MacGIBBON —Look at the editorial in the Australian of Tuesday, 9 February, headed `Question over aid to Mozambique'. I am sorry that Senator Ray started me on this topic because he will get a lecture. The editorial reads: The decision of the Australian Government to promise $6 million worth of aid to Mozambique was insupportable from the very beginning. It talks about the failings of that Mozambique regime and the way in which it has no relevance to Australia. That is perfectly correct. Our responsibilities lie in the South Pacific and in the region to our north and west. If we are to give money away, let us give it to countries such as the Philippines and to the Philippines Army. Before the Left starts to fly up in high dudgeon about this, let me say that the only way in which the communists will be prevented from taking over in the Philippines is for the Philippines to have an effective army. There is a legitimate argument under the defence co-operation program for payment to be made to the Philippines so that its army capability can be improved, however much it offends the far left of the Australian Labor Party. This paper, which comprises 31 pages, says very little except that the region around us is important and the security of that region is important. The great deficiency of the paper is that there is no tangible support for the development of regional alliances and regional military capability. There is this delightful passage towards the end of the paper where the Minister says something about sovereignty. . . . in co-operation with New Zealand, an integrated approach to helping the island states to exercise the most fundamental element of nationhood-sovereign control of their lands and waters. He is talking about the patrol boat program. Talk of sovereign control of the land and waters is very fine. That is perfectly true, but we certainly do not have sovereign control over our own land and waters because this Government does not spend enough money on defence, while it is spending so much on capital equipment. This is not an act of free choice by the Government; it is a consequence of the contractual situation that it inherited. By freezing the defence budget, the percentage of money devoted to capital equipment has gone up from about 17 per cent at the start of this decade to a figure now in excess of 27 per cent. This means that the money devoted for the conditions of service of Australian service men and women has been cut back so that we now have a great crisis with the greatest level of resignations that this country has ever seen. We have lost the ability to provide for our own defence and to have sovereign control of lands and water. We simply do not know what is going on around the northern part of Australia. Not only have we lost this ability now, but we have lost the capability for a generation. We have lost those experienced people who have served for 10 years or more in the Service in the various specialities-on the sea, in the air and on the land. There is no way that we can recover from that in the short term. That is the fallacy of this whole paper. While we are talking at last about the need to support the region we find that our own military position is one of bankruptcy. There is no recovery from it in the short term. It will take at least 10 years of hard work to get back to the capability that we should have today. We must have more money. The defence vote is clearly inadequate. All we get from Mr Beazley is a hand-wringing exercise. He says, quite incorrectly, that a Liberal government would not increase the defence vote. He said that no government that came to power in this country would be prepared to put more into defence. That is not true and there is no way that he can prove it is true. We need to increase the defence vote if we are to look after the responsibilities that the Government has to this country and the region. But in so far as this paper shows a recognition that the defence of Australia does not start with barbed wire on Bathurst Island-the way that Mr Dibb saw it-in so far as the Government is starting to see the need for decent relationships with our neighbours, in so far as it is seeing the need to support them, to help them and to work with them for common goals, then this report has something going for it. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(4.15) —Senator MacGibbon referred to the fact that this ministerial statement did not refer to ANZUS. The fact that this statement does not refer to ANZUS by name does not mean that ANZUS is not writ large throughout the pages of this report. It is a shame that the report does not deal directly with ANZUS in terms of our obligations to our allies and how they interact with our obligations to our regional neighbours. In fact, throughout the statement these two separate terms are referred to. It refers to regional and other defence partners, as opposed to our alliances. It is quite clear that what we feel about our alliances is different from what we feel about our regional associations. This is the part of the statement that I would like to look at now, because it is important, when we are talking about security in the region, that we understand for whom the security is meant. Whom are we securing and for whom are we securing them? It seems that if we look at neighbouring countries in our region, we find that we have done very little to prevent the lessening of their sovereignty and the worsening of their economic and political circumstances. Belau continues to be bullied by the United States, the French still carry out their imperialist games in New Caledonia, the coup in Fiji is denying democracy to the people of Fiji, and so on. There is a lessening of security for smaller countries within the region, despite talk about developing the ability to maintain regional security. For example, New Zealand has been accused by Senator MacGibbon and others of destroying ANZUS. Of course, New Zealand did not destroy ANZUS. New Zealand merely said that it would not have nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered warships in its harbours. The United States and Australia decided that that was enough to kick New Zealand out of ANZUS. Prime Minister Lange stated repeatedly that he believed in ANZUS, he wanted New Zealand to remain within ANZUS. The other ANZUS partners decided that the prohibition on nuclear-armed and powered warships was enough to throw New Zealand out of ANZUS. What were Australia's responsibilities in that situation? New Zealand is a neighbour and a close partner, economically, in the region. Why did Australia participate in the bullying of New Zealand over its anti-nuclear decision and do the job for the United States of trying to talk Lange out of that decision of his Government? It was because the primary and most important part of our defence arrangements is our alliance with the United States. Senator Collins has said at another time that he supports the alliance, and I suggest that, if the Government believes that its alliance with the United States is the important factor in its defence arrangements, that is fine. I may not agree with it, but it is fair enough for a government to decide with whom it will be allied. If the primary alliance is with the United States, that should have been canvassed in the statement. There may be a conflict over Fijian interests, for example, or a conflict because of our support for and regional association with some South West Pacific nations. If there is a conflict between their interests and our interests in terms of our alliance with the United States, just which way will Australia move? Will it move in the direction of maintaining and protecting our alliance with the United States, or will it see its role in the region, its regional responsibilities, as paramount? Will it support our neighbours in such a conflict of interests? Senator Robert Ray —That is predicated on the belief that we have a master-servant relationship with the US. It is not. It is a partnership. Senator WOOD —If I might digress for a moment to respond to Senator Ray's interjection, I do not believe that we have a master-servant relationship with the United States in that sense. I do not believe that the Pentagon pulls the strings and Bob Hawke jumps, but I believe that there is a partnership in the sense of two friends walking down the same road together, because Australia has chosen to walk down a particular road with the United States. Nevertheless I do believe that, although a friend, the United States is bigger and more powerful, and can be very persuasive. Should Australia decide that it wants to walk down a different road, I am pretty sure that then we would see Australia pulled sharply back into line. I am not suggesting that at this stage the Hawke Government is a puppet regime of Washington, but I am suggesting that, were any Australian Government to decide to walk down a different road, we would soon see just how independent we were able to be. The problem with walking down the same road with the United States is the very problem I have just outlined. The United States is not the only other player in the game. The United States is not our only friend. Other nations in our region look to Australia for support. When these countries look to us for support and there is a conflict of interest concerning whom we should support, the question I ask is: What do we do then? Do we support the United States and its intentions or do we support our neighbours in the region? It seems to me that until now we have always gone the way of supporting our big brother or big friend or however one wants to characterise our relationship with the United States. The other problem with the statement, as I see it, is that it is preoccupied-as indeed most of our defence arrangements are-with capital equipment programs. It seems to suggest that peace and security is the same as a military stand-off. In my view, security is not a military state; it is being secure from hunger, secure from economic exploitation, secure from political oppression and secure from environmental holocaust. There is no point in living in an armed camp and being secure from invasion if we are visited by plague, pestilence and political oppression within our country. That is no security at all. If we truly believe in security within the region, not only should we be talking about defence arrangements but also we should be saying to our friends and neighbours that we will support them economically, we will support them socially and we will support them culturally. Senator Vallentine outlined a range of options, including cultural exchanges, economic co-operation and those other aspects of our relationships with our neighbours, which seem to have been forgotten. If the only relationships we maintain with our neighbours are military ones, alliances, we cannot blame our neighbours if they decide that someone else is militarily more capable of defending them. Of course we did that with Great Britain. Great Britain was our great friend and protector for a long while, and then we decided that the United States was the better option. Senator Puplick —It sent us some of our best citizens, didn't it? Senator WOOD —It did. We chose to rely on one military force as opposed to another because we felt that in the South Pacific region the United States was capable of defending us more easily. So it should be no surprise if our neighbours make such a decision too. If our only relationship is a military one and our only co-operative ventures concern defence, we cannot expect anything else. It seems to me that the security of our region would be best brought about by the development and the maintenance and security of democracy in the region. It is hypocritical to talk about maintaining security in the region and yet allow elected governments to fall, allow small countries to be bullied by larger countries outside the region and contribute to the grand superpower strategies which are leading to the sorts of economic exploitation and political oppression that we see. I agree with Senator MacGibbon on one point-- Senator Puplick —Say it slowly. Senator WOOD —I hope the honourable senator does not have a heart attack. Senator MacGibbon said that peace and security is the best form of defence. I would say three cheers to that if what he meant by peace and security was all of the things that I have mentioned-that it did not involve military options, that it meant being secure in the knowledge that people would be fed, secure in the knowledge that there would be a roof over one's head, secure in the knowledge that there would be education for one's children, secure in the knowledge that we would not be economically exploited and secure in the knowledge that it was not all going to be blown away in a nuclear or environmental holocaust. But it seems that this statement talks about regional security in the sense of securing the region for the Western alliance, making sure that none of the countries in the region fall to the dreaded prospect of independent foreign policies. Heaven forbid that they might be anti-nuclear as well! This report fails in many aspects. One is that it does not talk about the region in terms of a region that we belong to; it talks about a region that exists around us somehow, somehow separate from us but around us and close to us so we have to take notice of it and do something about it because it is there. But it does not place us in the region as part of it. Once we begin to see ourselves as being part of the region and equal with the people in the region, the less we will succumb to the temptation for us to take over the imperialistic role that is gradually being ceded by the United States. The United States empire is waning. There will be a vacuum in the south-west Pacific to our north. It seems to me that the defence arrangements we are coming into are securing our place in the future as the regional superpower which will become the protector and exploiter of the region. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(4.31) —We are now considering a ministerial paper tabled a couple of hours ago under the title of `Self-Reliance and Co-operation: Australia's Regional Defence Policy'. It has variously been described as a twaddle, emanating from cloud-cuckoo-land and other fairly vague criticisms. I can identify with those vague criticisms but, nevertheless, I would like to be a bit more specific. I would like to address some comments not only to the content of the statement but also to the process by which we received it and the circumstances under which we are now considering it. We do not expect the parliamentary process to be perfect. We all accept its imperfections. We are certainly witnessing one here this afternoon; the fact that in one chamber a Minister can read a statement for 45 minutes and in the other chamber, with relatively little warning, it is tabled. We have had it for a couple of hours. We did not know we were going to get it. Senator Newman —And there are no speakers on the Government side. Senator McLEAN —And there is nobody excepting the duty Minister and the Acting Whip on the Government side of the House. It is an incredibly imperfect process and we should feel an obligation to tell the people that not only is the content ineffective and inadequate but also the process by which we were presented with it is appalling. I am fascinated by the contradictions in terms of Australia's defence that I find in reading the statement, between the statement and the realities of what is out there. A long time ago I reached the conclusion that politicians quite clearly should not be the formulators of defence policy. I am still at a loss to know who should be but this process and this product today certainly reinforce my earlier assessment that it should not be politicians-and, above all, it should not be the Government of today. Let us turn to what the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has told us in this statement. Senator Puplick —Who the hell else is going to do it? Senator McLEAN —I am at a loss to answer that. The evidence before us here certainly suggests that it is not being done very adequately by the government of the day. Let us turn to the key document, the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. Senator Puplick —You don't want to leave it to the generals, do you? Senator McLEAN —I am going to offer some comments about that at the end of my statement. The Dibb report is cited as being a very constructive document which has stimulated great discussion throughout Australia. The discussion about Australia's defence emanating from the Dibb report has been deafening. I saw three or four attempts at public forums. I do not believe there has been the slightest real discussion emanating from the Dibb report. I make some observations about the Dibb report and this document before us today. They are based essentially on very conventional thinking about defence. We have been locked and continue to remain locked into defence models which, naturally and reasonably, are historical. But they do not have to be totally historical or continue to reflect excessively the models of World War I, World War II, Vietnam and so on. They do not reflect any dynamic lateral thinking. I cite what I mean by lateral thinking and the lack of it by taking one specific and one more general example. Recently we have seen the extraordinary situation in which the surveillance of our north coast, which honourable senators would agree is not irrelevant to the defence of our country, was almost handed over to a private enterprise company that was incapable of getting three aircraft into the air on the day it was asked to achieve this. As a result of this embarrassment the question has been shuffled off to the Senate Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. Senator Coulter and I have made a submission to that committee, which we would consider to be at least lateral in its proposition-a bit imaginative. We have proposed that the purchase of 20 aircraft of Canadian make, the CL215, which is an amphibious aircraft, would be a very positive, constructive and imaginative approach to the surveillance of our coast in that it would give a capacity not only to carry out surveillance but to intercept and take constructive action. That is an example of the specifics of what we mean by lateral thinking. I would like to take a broader example of what we mean by lateral thinking about defence, what we mean by putting behind us the models of World War I, World War II and Vietnam, and thinking in terms of models which address the defence challenges of the next three, four and five decades. I will quote from the preface to a report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, which makes a pertinent observation which I will link in a moment to defence. In its opening paragraph, it makes this observation: Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet suffers the full consequences of acid rain, global warming, ozone depletion, widespread, desertification, and species loss. Most of today's young voters will be alive. In that group of decision makers that presumably the Commission is referring to are people such as our Defence Minister, who is pitching his level of analysis in time frames which suit his political party and the aspirations of government-time frames of three months or three years. This Commission is addressing the much more demanding time frames of three, four and five decades. This ministerial statement is grossly inadequate because it does not address time frames beyond months-at most, several years. In other words, it is lacking in imagination. We do not deny, fail to accept or reject obvious statements of our need to be self-reliant. Of course we need to be self-reliant. We admire the positive thinking on page 5 of the ministerial statement. I ask how this is for a bit of positive thinking: As a result of the Dibb report, this ministerial statement and this Government's progressive defence policy, the Minister stated: With careful planning Australia can now maintain a Defence Force which can both defend our territories and approaches, and contribute to the security of our broader region. Australia no longer needs to make a choice between self-reliance on the one hand and our network of alliances and regional associations on the other. We have the capacity-and indeed the requirement-to do both. I think that is probably what Senator Messner was referring to when he said that this was twaddle. It is certainly what I am referring to when I am drawing the comparison between a statement like that and the realities of what we have on the ground now in terms of defence capacity. I hope that at least some honourable senators have read the article by Commodore Alan Robertson in the latest issue of the Pacific Defence Reporter. Commodore Robertson is a recently retired senior naval planning strategist and he describes our defence capacity as being absolutely and utterly impotent, laughable and a national disgrace. This is from somebody who recently vacated a career where he was able to observe at first hand and was frustrated by the policies of government after government. I am sure that honourable senators would have noticed and observed the statements in the media recently of Air Chief Marshal Evans, who made the observation that we are not capable of determining whether aircraft are crossing our northern coastlines and, if so, what they are or what they are here for. Recently retired Air Chief Marshal Evans made that statement. Honourable senators may be aware that recently retired Rear Admiral Guy Griffiths is now deliberately seeking opportunities to be a guest speaker and divulge to more and more Australians the utter incapacity of our defence forces. Honourable senators are probably aware that today at the Canberra College of Advanced Education there is a seminar being attended by eminent ex-servicemen, present serving officers and distinguished veterans who are investigating, enunciating and exploring the extraordinary dimension of the wastage from our defence forces and why it is occurring. Honourable senators are probably aware that right now a committee of this Senate is exploring exactly the same questions because we are in crisis in terms of our defence. Our Defence Force is in tatters. It was described by Senator MacGibbon several weeks ago as a Defence Force which is incapable of defending Bondi Beach on Saturday afternoon. I got up and qualified that and said, `Perhaps that might be excessive', but certainly our present commanders have said in the light of recent military exercises that our Defence Force is incapable of defending a major metropolitan centre against sustained conventional attack. In fact, it is not defence against sustained conventional attack that we really should be addressing ourselves to. What I am citing is the extraordinary contradiction between the statements and propositions inherent in this ministerial statement and the realities of what is out there and being explored today by seminars and standing committees. The public must become aware of the fact that we are in crisis. This ministerial statement is a snow job. It sits alongside the Dibb report as part of a process of depriving the Australian people of the realities about the inadequacies of our defence. It talks about playing a leading role in the strategic defence of our area. Playing a leading role is a function of credibility. If we have an incredibly demoralised and impotent Defence Force, how on earth can we play a credible leading role in the regional defence strategies of the South Pacific? It is a laughable proposition. I have cited the statements by Commodore Alan Robertson, Air Chief Marshal Evans and Rear Admiral Guy Griffiths. Senator Cook —And Colonel Blimp. Senator McLEAN —No, I have not cited Colonel Blimp. I have cited people who have recently served in this Defence Force and who are totally aware of what a disgraceful situation the present government and previous governments have allowed it to deteriorate to. I believe that Senator Wood addressed quite reasonably, as did Senator MacGibbon, the proposition that our greatest assurance of security is to further the peace ethos and that we should identify with the peace ethos. We should not become without vigilance-of course not; but we should identify with the ethos. We should promote the ethos through constructive foreign and aid policies. As we do so we engender the security of our region by raising our credibility, instead of saying that we have a credible Defence Force. That is ludicrous. We read about rotational deployments of what we have got-rotational deployments of our FA18s and rotational deployments of our inadequate naval defences. Rotational deployments have caused the state of morale in our defence forces over a period of 2 1/2 decades-- Senator Newman —Musical chairs. Senator McLEAN —Musical chairs. Give them all an overseas posting; placate them with a few extra allowances; dislocate their kids so that after they had served for 20 years in the defence forces, been to Malaysia three times and had their kids in 15 schools they can walk away demoralised and then probably have to suffer a 2 per cent reduction in their Defence Force retirement benefits payments as a result of having given 20 years of their lives. This ministerial statement denies the realities. It is not the truth. It is dishonest. What is more, it has been delivered to us in a manner which denies constructive, real debate in the community. It is a part of the ongoing disguise. It is a part of the pretence. We must raise this issue of defence, civil and military, to become a major issue on the political agenda. If we cannot achieve that it will continue to languish and deserves to continue to languish. I recall a statement by Jim Cairns at the time I was a university student when he propounded a thesis about spheres of influence. He said that it was folly for us to go onto the mainland of South East Asia because in the long term the spheres of influence would prevail, that this part of the area fell within the sphere of influence of China and in the ultimate, the end reality, that would be the outcome of all the military and aid tragedies and the other dimensions of what proved to be a farce. That is what I mean by a bit of lateral thinking. If we had accepted that proposition 20 years ago, I frankly do not believe that the yellow hordes would have rolled over this nation. I think that perhaps we would have been able to address our defence much more rationally and much more realistically. Senator Cook —They have not rolled over it. Senator McLEAN —Of course they have not. The fact is that if the bomb goes up-I mean the big one-what we will need most in this nation is a civil defence organisation, which is something we have not got and something we have never truly addressed ourselves to. By lateral thinking I mean that this Government-and this Opposition if it becomes the government-has to be prepared. Senator Cook —Identify the threat. Senator McLEAN —There isn't one. Can't the honourable senator hear what I am saying? In fact, there isn't one and, therefore, a much more rational approach to defence would be to attend to needs which in fact do not see us fighting our bushfires, maintaining our coastal patrols and funding our state emergency services by selling lamingtons and jams on street corners while we spend $7.6 billion a year on a Defence Force which is impotent, demoralised and propped up by papers such as the one we are asked to address ourselves seriously to today. Senator Maguire —I would not want to be defended by the Democrats. Senator McLEAN —The honourable senator will not have to be. The Government will have to construct its own rational, sensible defence organisation. Senator Maguire —You will never be in government. Senator McLEAN —I do not think we will be in government in the foreseeable future, but at least I am here trying to make a constructive suggestion to somebody who is in government. Senator Tambling —There is not one of them doing it. There is not one Labor speaker. Senator McLEAN —Of course there is not. They are not even here to enter into the debate. They are not debating it in their Caucus; they are sitting back and being fed on this sort of rubbish. That is exactly what is happening with the defence of this nation. Senator Cook —Are you the MacGibbon Democrat? Senator McLEAN —The Minister is just sitting there shooting off meaningless statements. He sits and concentrates for three or four minutes with all his intellectual energy, and then he blurts out one of these utterly meaningless gems. Senator Puplick —Three or four minutes of intellectual energy is all he can exert. Senator McLEAN —I could not agree more. Earlier I suggested it might be feasible to put together think-tanks which at least are objective, think-tanks which are experienced, think-tanks which do not have vested interests like politicians and governments grasping onto power. Senator Maguire —What do you want-another coup? Senator McLEAN —No, I am saying that Air Chief Marshal Evans, now he is out, and others who were in my office the other day described themselves during their period of service as being basically unionists who had to defend their own self-interest. When they sat down around a table, when they made submissions to Cabinet, it was all about defending the structure of their own services; it was all about getting a few bucks in the defence allocation. Now that they are out, now that they have the insight from having sat around those tables, perhaps people like Air Chief Marshal Evans, Rear Admiral Guy Griffiths-and I am not mentioning Colonel Blimp-and people like Commodore Alan Robertson, and many many others, might be able to spell out, as they are now doing, to the Australian people what the realities are. As a matter of fact, Rear Admiral Griffiths has produced an excellent paper. I do not know if honourable senators have seen it. He is now going around the country delivering it, and it makes a damn sight more sense than the one the Minister for Home Affairs has tabled here today. At least Rear Admiral Griffiths starts off by considering realistically what the major strategic factors are. He said there are at least four major strategic factors around which we should build our defence strategy, and he refers to it, of course, quite critically, as being a strategy of deterrence. That is what the name of the game is in defence: it is to deter; it is to avoid; it is to prevent involvement. It is not getting involved that we have to concentrate our strategies on. Rear Admiral Griffiths cites these as the critical fundamental strategic factors; first of all-and, of course, there is nothing new about this-we are, first and foremost, an island; secondly, we are rich in resources, but not self-sufficient. Thirdly, Australia is vitally dependent upon trade for both exports and imports and for overall national development. We are near neighbour to over half of the world's population; and, lastly, we are surrounded by a vast maritime area. Those factors in fact seem obvious, but they are the premises from which we have to proceed to build a strategy of deterrence. Rear Admiral Griffiths then says that the next thing we have to do to identify what are our national interests, not some imagined national interests but what are really the national interests. First and foremost is the security of the population and the services and industries in this country; secondly, the security of our offshore resources; thirdly, the security of our outlying territories; and, lastly, the security of our seaborne trade. He cites these four as our major national interests. From these he defines a number of quite simple objectives from which things will logically begin to flow, not from the models of World War I, World War II, Vietnam, but from a logically reasoned out argument which progresses to what should be the clear definable objectives of a strategy of deterrence. The first objective should be to maintain our regional stability; secondly, to influence and control developments in our area, to control what is happening in our area; thirdly, to deter the development of adverse influences; fourthly, to prevent an attack on our vital sea transport and on Australia; and, lastly, to support alliances which contribute to our national and regional security. As Senator Wood earlier cited, that last objective has become the first objective of the last two governments that have formulated the defence policies that now see us to be in the straits in which we find ourselves. So what I am really saying is that we have an antiquated mentality; we have the wrong people being listened to in terms of formulation of defence policy; we have a lack of lateral thinking; we are ignoring the broader global dimensions of defence; and we are still seeing it in terms of rifles, ships, trucks and helicopters. But, in fact, it may be much broader things than that. I quote once again from the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development an interesting observation. Page 7 in the preface states: The recent destruction of much of Africa's dryland agricultural production was more severe than if an invading army had pursued a scorched-earth policy. Yet most of the affected governments still spend far more to protect their people from invading armies than from the invading desert. We are locked into mentalities about what is defence and what is the future, and how we should expend dollars in our own defence; we cannot see what is right before our very eyes, that it is issues of peace, security, development and environment that are all locked together. This shallow ministerial statement, together with the conventional thinking of the Dibb report, is not going to move us forward one jot. Unless we get people of more imagination than we are witnessing from the present Government-and they may be sitting on the Opposition benches; I trust to heaven they are-we are going to find ourselves utterly defenceless. We are almost there now. As somebody said to me-and it was a statement that got me into politics-when it comes to government we get what we deserve. We deserve what we get. The better the democracy we live in, the truer that observation is. We are finding ourselves with governments that are expecting us to accept the tripe that is trotted up today as a ministerial statement. It simply stands in stark contradiction with what is out there. We are almost defenceless. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.00) —This afternoon the Senate is debating this lightweight statement from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) entitled `Self-Reliance and Co-operation' and subtitled `Australia's Regional Defence Policy'. I have listened with interest to this debate. The previous two speakers have had something to say that was worth hearing, although I cannot go along with everything they said. I agree with them when they say that the Government has produced a document which we would hardly need to spend any time considering if it were not for the seriousness of its subject matter. The coalition parties believe in peace through security. Obviously we shall have to send Senator Wood a copy of our policy to show him how we believe that peace through security can be achieved. It is interesting to listen to the yapping that has been coming from the new Minister for something or other on the front bench. He has been left minding the shop for the moment, but I do not think the boy will be left doing that much more often. Senator Puplick —He is the Minister in favour of uranium these days. Senator NEWMAN —He is the Minister in favour of uranium? What is his name? Is it Senator Cook? I think that is his name. The Minister who at present is representing the Government in the chamber has been yapping about threats for some time, and a pretty ignorant sort of yap it has been, too. He asked Senator McLean to identify the threat. If anything shows up the Minister's ignorance, it is his yapping about identifying the threat. I wonder whether honourable senators on the Government side bother to insure their houses. I presume that they cannot identify where the threat to their houses from fire will come from, but I presume that they take due precautions against such an occurrence. I presume that they insure their houses. I presume that they cut any long grass and other vegetation away from their houses. I presume that they would remove any inflammatory material that might be stored near their houses. They may not know where the threat is coming from but they protect themselves against it. And so should Australia and this Government defend this country against any threat. It does not have to be an identifiable threat. A responsible government will defend its citizens. That is why it is so sad to look at this so-called statement from a Minister who has a reputation-I do not know that I should say whether it is deserved or underserved-for having some intellectual capacity. As far as I can see, this statement is a rehash of the Minister's Press statements over the last six months. Perhaps it is meant to be some sort of justification for this South Sea frolic. However, it is sad that he says this in the statement: . . . the same capabilities that we are developing for the defence of Australia are well suited to co-operation with our regional and other defence partners. What capabilities? The fact is that Australia's capability is severely limited. At last Australians are starting to be aware of this. They are waking up to the fact that this Government is leaving them defenceless. Our insurance policy in the hands of this Government has been squandered. I think it has run off to the casino with it. The squandering of that insurance policy has been brought about largely by government decisions and priorities. It is not just a question of inaction. The Government has embarked upon a deliberate policy to change the balance in our Federal Budget so that defence does not receive a proper share of the total budget; and there has been a misallocation of resources within the defence vote. I have no quibble with the essence of the Minister's statement. It regurgitates the announcements that the Minister has been making over the last few months. I simply draw attention to some of those announcements. They include such matters as the formal arrangement with Papua New Guinea, the Pacific patrol boat program, regional maritime surveillance and co-operation, the presence of a major combatant in South East Asian waters, joint training and exercises, civil engineering projects, assistance with communications and aid in civil emergencies. We do not oppose those things but we do not think they go anything like far enough. The statement is full of good intentions. Really it is not up to scratch. The proposal for rotational deployment of FA18 and PC3 aircraft to Malaysia and Singapore is really a case of musical chairs. We need to have in those countries a permanent establishment, as we have had in the past. I think my colleague Senator MacGibbon said earlier that it had been a great thing for our working relationship with our neighbours that so many servicemen had worked with them on a daily basis and had not just flown in and flown out. We were not a now-you-see-us, now-you-don't kind of defence force. What is set out in the statement are just good intentions; they are not hard commitments. Last year when I was in Singapore I had some briefings on the subject of our five power defence arrangements, and I had briefings on foreign affairs and defence matters generally. I must say that I was terribly disheartened to observe the real lack of interest that that country had in things Australian generally and the irrelevance with which we as a nation are treated in that part of the world. I know that that attitude is not unique to Singapore, but it is something about which we should be desperately concerned. We should be doing something much more meaningful to redress and turn around that attitude. These token measures, these peanuts if you like, that are being scattered around the Pacific and South East Asia are all the more obscene when it is realised, as some of my colleagues have already said, how much money this Government seems to be able to produce out of its pockets when it is to be scattered around to its left wing friends in Africa. We are to spend $100m in that region, but we cannot find money to defend this country or to enable us to work properly in defence co-operation and civil aid co-operation with our neighbours. We need to implement more substantial measures than those outlined in this thick but thin paper-thick in terms of the number of pages but thin in terms of substance. We could put forward many suggestions about ways in which we could co-operate with our neighbours. Some of those matters have already been canvassed by some honourable senators who have already spoken in this debate. I think it is of critical importance to provide civil assistance. It is one of those goodwill means by which we can help people in the way in which they particularly need assistance in their own community. We do not have to provide straight-out defence aid in order to contribute to the peace and security of our region. We have within our defence forces many skilled personnel who could be put to good use in providing civil aid to our neighbours. Not nearly enough is being done in that area. The provision of such aid is good for our neighbours and it is equally good for the training of our own personnel. It provides them with skills and gives them practice in the sorts of jobs that often they will be expected to do in wartime but which have a distinctly useful application in peacetime. We do not train in this country nearly enough of our neighbours. We should be much more generous in bringing students to this country for training, as well as people who need defence skills. We have engaged in a lot of that activity in the past. I do not think we are doing nearly enough now. In fact, when I was in Singapore this is one of the matters that was discussed. Once more we are seen as being irrelevant. We are not providing the form of military training that some of those countries finds relevant to their purposes. For goodness sake, they are going to Britain and America for that training rather than their neighbouring country, Australia. What a commentary that is on what they perceive they can get from our training. Equally, many more training opportunities should be provided for Australian defence personnel in our neighbouring countries. There has been a decline in the level of our co-operative defence activities with Indonesia. The Minister admits that himself. Fortunately he says that he is a little sorry about it. But if he were sorry about it I would hope that he would be doing something about it. Much more attention should be given to such activities and there should be a more meaningful co- operative involvement in such activities. I welcome the Minister's comment in the statement about combined exercises with the Thai forces. That is the sort of activity in which we could be constantly engaging with our neighbours. It would be good for all of us. It is not just a question of refining defence skills; it is a question of trusting each other and learning to work together. I believe that there cannot be too much of that. Much more could be made of the five power defence arrangements if we showed ourselves willing. It seems that we are not really trusted by our neighbours in those arrangements. They consider that they do not need to do much more than give them occasional formal recognition. The arrangements do not have life and breath in them. We need to get a little fire into those arrangements so that they mean more to us and more to our neighbours. I very much regret that we do not have more land forces in Malaysia. On the same basis that we should have permanent Air Force units there we should also have more substantial land forces there, once again for the variety of training it offers our troops and also for the co-operative effort and trust that develop with the defence personnel in those countries where often to be a stranger is to be suspect. We are the same in this country. Most people in any country are suspicious of strangers. One of the best ways to break down suspicion is to get to know each other by working together. It contributes to regional security. The Minister, in this statement, recommends the deployment of patrol boats to Manus for extended periods. That is the sort of thing we could be doing much more of. I cannot quite understand what the Minister is getting at on page 18 when he talks about the provision of a continuous presence of a major combatant of the Australian Navy in South East Asian waters. He says that while there the Australian ships will train and exercise with regional navies to the benefit of both. When I first read this I thought, `My goodness, maybe the Minister is getting a bit imaginative. Maybe he is talking about establishing a fleet in being in the region whereby the small navies of the region'-and I count us in that-`could all contribute some ships to peacekeeping duties in the oceans of our region'. But I suspect that that is not what the Minister had in mind. He perhaps would have been more specific if that is what he had intended. There is some virtue, however, in considering such a fleet. Once more it is a question of practising together on a constant and regular basis. We have continuing increases in the Soviet presence in both the Indian and Pacific oceans. The Indian Navy is being built up largely at the cost of the Soviets and is certainly being established with Soviet-built vessels. Jane's Fighting Ships, for example, has recently said, `Why is this so? There is no good reason for an increase in the Indian fleet in the Indian Ocean to such an extent'. Such developments add to tension in the region. A fleet in being, composed of contributions from regional navies, could well be a stabilising influence in our region. Let it not be thought that, by not mentioning it in any detail, I do not believe that our alliances with our immediate neighbours and our larger friends are not vitally important. They are. But I believe that we should not be so dependent upon them that we do not pay more attention, firstly, to being self-reliant and, secondly, to co-operating meaningfully in our region. It is not enough to visit the South Pacific Islands talking about co-operation. We need to be seen to be capable of defending ourselves against the low level threats we are most likely to face in the foreseeable future otherwise we do not have a hope of being taken seriously and considered as a responsible neighbour by our own neighbours. They are not taking us seriously because they can see that we do not have these capabilities. The Minister makes much of our ability not only to defend ourselves but also to give meaningful defence co-operation in the region. We do not have the capacity to defend ourselves effectively, which must affect our ability to co-operate in a defence forum in the region. We are currently demonstrating the very opposite of what the Minister said. He said: With careful planning, Australia can now maintain a defence force which can both defend our territories and approaches, and contribute to the security of our broader region ellipsis. We have the capacity-and indeed the requirement-to do both. We certainly have the requirement to do both; we do not have the capacity to do both. It is to the Government's shame that, after all this time in office, we do not have the capacity to do both. I now want to raise the problem areas that relate to our lack of capacity. They need to be well understood and clearly spelt out. Firstly, I would like to draw attention to the ability of others to intrude into our waters. What sort of an impression do we give when six fishing boats can be off our shores for days, when one can get away and others can be deep into our creeks before they are caught? Senator Hill —They don't know how many were there. Senator NEWMAN —No, they do not. That is the worry. To think that we, a country that should be able to defend its own shores, does not even know how many trochus fishermen we had in our creeks on the north-west of Australia. Those are creeks and river areas where information about tidal flows, shoals and shipping conditions are of critical importance to anybody who would ever have an ulterior motive towards this country. Those fishing boats provided an ideal opportunity for intelligence gathering. Who is to say whether trochus gathering was the only purpose for those visits? We simply cannot prevent this. We simply cannot detect it in time to catch the boats. It takes four days for our patrol boats to steam from Perth. Our Customs Service boats were stretched to the limit by this last handful of boats. We had the fiasco over the coastal surveillance contract for civilian responsibility. It is clear to me that this area should be under defence command. Our present ad hoc arrangement is not good enough. It is clear that the job is not being done properly. I quote from a working paper of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, entitled `The Northern Territory in the Defence of Australia: Naval Considerations', by Commander Youll, in which he said: . . . we have traditionally applied a fragmented, committee (spread the blame) approach to northern littoral surveillance and response . . . it is debilitating of the limited national resource not to vest the surveillance of our northern approaches in the Defence Force who have the legal, knowledge and resource primacy in the task, both as a national responsibility and in terms of regional expertise. At present we are unable to prevent people from intruding into our waters and coming right onto our land. We are also unable to prevent intrusion into our air space. Only in November last year Air Commodore Tex Watson was reported in the Australian as saying that 80 per cent of the high level air space and 99 per cent of the low level air space to our north is not watched. We have a RAAF capacity in the north limited to air traffic control radar and air defence radar in Darwin which cannot see over the horizon. Admittedly, we have Jindalee in the pipeline but it has many snags in it. It will be a long time before they are ironed out. Our information gathering has to be improved. We need to obtain airborne early warning and control aircraft. The Government has not bitten the bullet on that. These things are vital to preventing our air space from suffering the intrusions which are going on now and which we have no ability to check. We also have a problem in dealing with the mining of our shipping lanes, choke points and ports. At this stage we are unable to prevent it. Darwin, Cockburn Sound and Sydney are all vulnerable. We have the vulnerability of our naval and merchant shipping. We have little or no air protection, especially anti-submarine warfare protection. We have an Air Force which, presumably will be involved in other tasks when the Navy or our merchant shipping need defending. The Government has made noises about looking at conversion of commercial shipping for defence tasks in time of an emergency but that is all. I understand that the Navy has shown so little enthusiasm for the matter it has not been given a real push along. I understand that Sir Peter Abeles is chairman of a committee that is supposed to be doing something about this. I would very much like to know where that committee has got to on the matter. We need to be able to refuel both the FA18s and the F111s. The Government has not taken a decision in that area. There are 40 guided missile destroyers sitting in Cam Ranh Bay that are closer to Darwin than are the three Australian ones sitting in Sydney. It is appalling to think of the vulnerability of the north and our shipping in the northern areas. The Minister is conveniently overlooking this lack of capability. I could go on to deal with several other areas such as our lack of amphibious capacity that was mentioned earlier. We are vulnerable to low level incursions. These are the attacks which will come without warning. The Government is constantly talking about our having warning of this, that and the other thing but I believe the most likely threats that face us will come as low level threats without warning. For example, we could have a number of simultaneous harassing attacks known as fait accompli. I refer, for example, to the North West Shelf oil and gas platforms, the northern Royal Australian Air Force bases, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island, Darwin and Papua New Guinea all receiving sharp, effective, ruthless attacks at the one time. I do not believe we have the manpower to deal with a number of simultaneous low level attacks. I wonder how the Government would deal for instance with a 747 aircraft arriving in Darwin with 400 tourists who turn out to be terrorists and who dash about grabbing our vital installations. I am talking about people who are super-well trained. What could the Government do about that if the terrorists held Darwin to ransom? Do we leave them be in Darwin? Do we forget about them? Do we have a sort of Darwin line? If we can deter these low level threats, if people believe that we have a deterrent capacity, then Australia has a chance of getting a warning time of any major attack. So our seen ability to defend ourselves from those sorts of attacks is protection for us from larger attacks. Mr Beazley says that he is proud to have the largest capital equipment program for the defence forces in Australia's peacetime history. He forgets that in order to deter and to fulfil responsibilities he needs manpower as well as equipment. This is where our greatest vulnerability lies. Our manpower is short and it is short for a couple of reasons. First, the Government has set ceilings which are too low. I find it a matter of great shame. The Government should throw in the towel if it cannot do better than this. It has deliberately reduced numbers in the defence forces this financial year to the extent that the second tier wage rise for the Defence Force was able to be funded out of the costs savings in reduced numbers of men. It is dreadful to cut back the defence forces to finance a second tier wage rise. That says nothing about the needs of the country to be defended. These ceilings have been cut back and whittled away until we now have an inability to manage even low level threats. Secondly, we are losing experienced people because service people are voluntarily leaving. They find that there is not the satisfaction any more in serving this country and protecting us. I do not intend to go into that in great detail now. As honourable senators know, I have given a lot of attention in the two years I have been in this Parliament to this matter. This Government needs a commitment to its personnel in the defence forces. We are currently spending about 42 per cent of the defence budget on personnel. That is far too low. That is largely responsible for the present demoralised situation. It is not just a question of pay: it is a question of meaningful employment; it is a question of worthwhile training; it is a question of family conditions; it is a question of career development and it is also a question of leadership by senior officers and by the Government. If the percentage of the defence budget was changed so that personnel represented nearer 50 per cent of the budget we would be getting something like the right break-up in the defence budget. I believe we need to increase the manpower ceilings in the defence forces by about 6,000 over the next four to five years in order to allow the necessary tasks to be done and also to provide an expansion base that may be needed in the future. The ceiling cuts that we have been seeing over recent years are totally dangerous for this country. If we can be seen to be doing something effective about our defence forces perhaps countries in the region will have some confidence in us because they will see that we mean business to defend ourselves as well as to contribute to their defence and their well being. Before I conclude I would just like to draw attention to a few figures which may interest honourable senators. I personally found them quite interesting. We have all been the subject in recent times of a campaign by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) about its projected cuts in funding. Honourable senators would recall that the ABC says that per capita it gets 8c a day. On my calculations the ABC did not in fact get quite 8c. However, that figure set me thinking. I found out that the defence forces budget gets $1.25 a day. That is what we give the defence of this country. That figure equals 2.8 per cent of gross domestic product. Mr Dibb said in his report that we should be spending 3 per cent. The Government agreed at the time but did not come up with the goods. If we spend 3 per cent that would mean an extra 10c a day. An extra 10c a day is all that we would need to bring us up to the 3 per cent that we really need as steady funding for defence. We seem to be able to afford $3.80 a day for social security and welfare. Can we afford not to spend an extra 10c a day on our defence, not just for ourselves but also for our regional stability? When Minister Beazley can demonstrate that our system is under control and that we are doing our part in preventing hostilities by deterrence, then we will be taken seriously in the region. Then Australians will be able to take the Defence Minister seriously and any reports that he might see fit to put before the Parliament. Until then, this statement is just window dressing. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.28) —The Senate is addressing a defence paper entitled Self Reliance and Co-operation: Australia's Regional Defence Policy. The paper and the trip to the region by the Defence Minister (Mr Beazley) both should be seen for what they are: that is, a reaction to our dismal regional standing following events in Fiji and an attempt to make sure that we are seen to be interested in South East Asia and the South Pacific. The paper is a somewhat pitiful attempt at self-justification. It attempts to camouflage the shortcomings and misjudgments that had been made by this Government in its defence planning. It adopts a new catch phrase of `regional defence co-operation', which is now going to be lauded. It follows other catch phrases we have had over the last couple of years as this Government has claimed to develop policy in this area. I criticise this statement and the premises upon which it is based on two levels: first, in relation to this Government's strategy upon which it is based and its attitude to joint regional defence and, secondly, our lack of capacity to contribute in any meaningful way to joint regional defence. I would suggest that the error in this strategy really commenced some 18 months ago with the release of the Dibb paper-a paper that rapidly became known as the isolationist paper. That paper again advocated a return to the outdated concepts of Fortress Australia, a belief that we could isolate Australia from events in the region and the world. It was what some might refer to as the ostrich approach-that if we buried our heads in the sand Australia could still be protected by its island status. The Minister was correct when he said in this statement that the Dibb paper caused considerable discussion. That is true. There was much discussion and criticism, as a result of which the Government somewhat hastily backed off. The next stage in this scenario was then developed, and that was the Government's self-reliance policy, which it put down in the form of its White Paper on defence. It therefore took a step back from the Dibb scenario to what it referred to as self-reliance. That was of course criticised less because self-reliance in itself is not a bad goal, if it can be achieved, but, as we would all know, self-reliance is something that can never be totally achieved by this country. I suggest that even in the rationale of a self-reliance policy there was a continuation of the attempt by this Government to distinguish Australia from its friends, and therefore in some way it is not all that similar to the original isolationist policy from which it developed. Both have that factor of wanting to distinguish or separate Australia from its regional and other friends. But what follows from that, I would suggest, is a loss of influence beyond our shores, and therefore a lessening of our capacity to influence peaceful outcomes. I respectfully suggest that peace is the best form of defence and, by the way, also the cheapest. Needless to say, the reaction of our friends and neighbours in the Association of South East Asian Nations and in the Pacific region has been one of despair. Their comments have certainly been couched in diplomatic terms but nevertheless they have indicated a growing belief that Australia is abdicating its responsibility as an influence for peace and stability within our region. Following the papers and the Government's thinking were a series of events which caused it, I would suggest, to rethink the direction it was taking. We had the events in Fiji where Australia experienced, not once but twice, an embarrassing failure of its intelligence capacity. We saw a democracy within our region, which we had always assumed to be secure, fall at the point of a gun. I hope that this Government then realised that we had lost the capacity to influence events in that country. At that time an election was pending in Vanuatu and there was some Press and diplomatic speculation that a similar event could occur there. Thank goodness that did not come to pass, but it again underlined the fragility of the Pacific democracies and our impotency in relation to influencing events. A number of events then occurred in Papua New Guinea (PNG) that caused us to wonder as to the future security of that country, and I refer to one which was subsequent to Mr Beazley's trip. That was the report earlier this month of an imminent coup that might take place in that country. That the warnings were taken seriously indicates something in itself. When we look at the very disenchanted former head of the army and Defence Minister in Brigadier Diro, and when we look at an alliance with the sacked immediate past Chief of the PNG Defence Force, Brigadier Tony Huai, one can see a scenario developing that would give Australia reason for concern as to the future security of Papua New Guinea from internal disruption. When Papua New Guinea has looked for help it has traditionally looked to us. One can only speculate why in recent times it has been turning to the United States of America for military assistance, in the form of Green Berets on the border to act as advisers, when in the past it has looked for assistance of that type from Australia. I suggest that this reflects a loss of confidence in Australia and in Australia's willingness to assist it through the difficult period ahead that it faces. I reflect very briefly on the wise comments of my colleague Senator MacGibbon when he referred again, as a number of us have in the past, to the short-sighted policy of this Government when last year it unilaterally slashed its aid to Papua New Guinea. It was not that the sum of money was of such great significance. What was of such great significance was that it showed Papua New Guinea that it was dealing with an Australia that it could no longer trust or rely upon. I suggest that that loss of confidence has had ramifications, and will have long term ramifications, such as those we are now seeing reflected in such events as Papua New Guinea inviting American servicemen to play a role that has traditionally been played by Australians. I have suggested that events in the region have indicated the shortcomings of the Government's so-called self-reliance policy. There is no doubt that those events caused the Defence Minister to take this trip to our neighbours and to reassure them that they were not forgotten. I would suggest that the truth is that they were largely forgotten, that the emphasis of this Government's policy is moving away from regional alliances and associations and away from agreements with our friends for mutual defence and support, and that a trip around the region is not going to change the facts. I certainly do not see anything in this defence statement that is changing the facts or even the perception of those facts. As I have indicated, the new initiatives in this paper, the initiatives that I look for to show that the Government in fact had turned a page and recognised the deficiency in its policies, are simply non-existent. Therefore when we look at page 2 of the statement and see the Government's attempt to argue that its whole policy of self-reliance has in fact been postured on development within the framework of our alliances and regional associations, we can look at that only with disbelief. If it seems so shallow to me, I can only be concerned that it would obviously seem so shallow to our neighbours, and that is something that I very seriously regret. They are told that they are to accept the statement as an assurance. They are not going to see any changes in substance which can give them the confidence that this Government has had a change of policy or in fact is more seriously going to take into account their regional security interests and our regional security interests. As evidence that there has been no change of attitude at all I need only to refer to quotes from Mr Paul Dibb-I remind honourable senators that he has been elevated to the position of Director of the Joint Intelligence Organisation, in which capacity he spoke and therefore no doubt reflected Government policy, because he is unable in that position to speak in any other way-who is reported as referring in the Sydney Morning Herald of 12 February to his assessment of: . . . a low chance of regional war spreading and getting out of control. That is the old low level threat scenario upon which he based his earlier report, and from which some of us thought this Government had departed. We are entitled to be somewhat confused because from that base he states: The great destructiveness of conventional weapons will also encourage restraint although there is a greater likelihood of low level conflict for political or limited territorial gains. He says that there is a greater likelihood of low level conflict. He continues: Nevertheless, the Australian Government face challenging questions of assessment. What will Indonesia be like after Suharto? What will be the result of a communist Philippines? Instability in Papua New Guinea? The hegemonistic designs of India in South Asia? Why does India need such a large navy? These questions are being asked by the head of our Joint Intelligence Organisation-the person who talked about a low level threat scenario, who based his whole paper on a belief that we live in a benign region and that we have the benefit of an immunity provided by distance. He continues: Another difficulty in assessment are the vast shifts occurring in the economic balance of power in Asia. They may have a fundamental impact on the region's security in the 1990s. I suggest that the chances are that they will have a vast impact on the region's security in the decades ahead. It is very difficult to predict a reasonable security and threat scenario for this country in the future. Mr Dibb appears to be reiterating his original low threat scenario, but then confuses us all by suggesting that perhaps there are many other factors that we should be taking into account. If we are taking them into account, I suggest that we should be looking far beyond the policy of self-reliance, because clearly it will be insufficient. What we should be looking at now is how we can influence these events in the region that he postulates with question marks in a way that will lessen the potential of their developing into scenarios that pose a direct threat to us and to our friends within the region. How can we do it? We can do it in a series of ways: by having a reasonable defence capacity, which I will get to in a moment, and by a whole series of other outreach programs, be they active and meaningful aid programs-and I mentioned the deficiency in relation to PNG-competent diplomatic initiatives, trade initiatives, cultural exchanges or educational support for those within our region who do not have the same resources. In other words, by a whole package of means we are able to influence change for the better, but to do so we need that package and in the package we need to re-establish the goodwill which is a pre-requisite to be able to influence the other states within our region. Even if we accepted, to some extent, what Mr Dibb said-that is, that we live in a benign environment-I suggest we should then be asking: What should we be doing to maintain this benign environment? A self-reliance policy certainly is not the answer. As I have indicated, I have not yet looked at our military capacity to help maintain favourable conditions within the region. I refer, in other words, to our defence outreach program, which I will get to in a moment. I have simply been looking at failures in the Government's attitude-failures that do not earn the respect of countries in the region, which we should have earned by demonstrating our commitment to assist with their regional problems. I also suggest that we could have demonstrated a genuine willingness to contribute to and be part of the region by listening to their viewpoints in the preparation of our defence planning. We should recognise that our regional neighbours are developing their own military capacities to a point which would, inevitably and understandably, give them a greater sense of pride and independence. They therefore feel that they have much to offer by way of suggestions on how best to safeguard the region. It is a pity that in the development of these papers this Government did not listen to some of these suggestions. There can be more open exchanges at operational levels between the military forces of Australia and those of our neighbours-certainly more than has been outlined in this paper. There can be more Chiefs of Staff exchanges and more high level planning meetings or discussions on such matters as freedom of movement through the Strait of Malacca and the other important sea lanes. Our neighbours are understandably surprised when this Government persists in its isolationist defence policy and puts Australia in danger of becoming impotent and redundant in our own region. That leads me to the question of our defence capacity. Do we have the capacity to contribute at that level to a more secure and safe environment without our region? I suggest, on any objective assessment, that the answer has to be no. Let me remind you, Madam Acting Deputy President-and it indicates attitude as well as capacity-that this was the Government that withdrew our small force of helicopters from the Sinai. It did so largely because it did not believe in defence outreach, but also because we were told that without that small helicopter force back in Australia we had no capacity to move our rapid deployment force. This is the Government that is withdrawing our permanent presence in the form of a fighter force from Butterworth base. This has been alluded to at length by my colleague Senator MacGibbon. We are given in this paper a complicated justification for that which is inconsistent with what the Senate has been told in the past. If I remember correctly, Senator Gareth Evans seemed to have some responsibility to make statements in this area. It is clear to us that it has been withdrawn for two reasons: the first is a lack of resources and the second is the earlier political judgment of this Government that it did not want to be involved in having a permanent fighter force outside Australia and within our region-in other words, in a permanent outreach situation. This is the Government that disbanded the Fleet Air Arm and therefore our capacity to extend influence of fixed-wing aircraft over any distance. This is the Government that allowed our personnel figures to run down to critical levels, as has been put to the Senate by Senator Newman today. I remind the Senate that we have 20 PC3 Orions but we do not have the personnel to operate more than 12 or 13 of them. I also bring to the attention of the Senate the fact that the flight hours for those Orions have now been reduced from an average of 1,200 to 1,400 hours per year to a record low of 700 hours in this financial year. So we do not have the professional staff to man the aircraft, to maintain the aircraft or to fly the aircraft. In any event, because of cost constraints their time in the air is being cut down to record levels. It is not surprising that that is happening because, as you are well aware, Madam Acting Deputy President, funding for defence is down. In real terms funding for defence in this last Budget is down by one per cent. We on this side of the chamber say that this indicates misplaced priorities. Our ships are now spending less time at sea because of fuel restrictions which have limited steaming hours and reduced operational training. I ask: Was the tragedy of HMAS Otama last year really just a series of unfortunate events or did it reveal something about the state of our submarine service? I believe that the statement issued by Admiral Hudson gave the true picture away when it referred to the low level of skill and experience on the Otama at the time of the tragedy. Only last week Air Marshal Funnell admitted that the Royal Australian Air Force was unlikely to be able to raise a third FA18 squadron. There are now only 12 pilots to a squadron when there should be 18. With the two under-strength squadrons and those pilots that remain obviously being younger and less skilled, one doubts whether the Minister's plans for rotating FA18 squadrons between Tindal and Butterworth will ever come to reality. Even if it does remain a genuine plan in the Government's mind, there are many in the Air Force who say that, as a matter of practice, it will not work and it will be a false economy. The dismantling of the permanent maintenance facilities will add to the financial outgoings in this project. With 170 pilots being lost to the service last year, when for the last 20 years we have lost an average of only 47 pilots, one can see the critical state to which our Air Force has fallen. There is still no sign of extending the refuelling capacity of our F111s, and the Minister has a great cheek to talk in this statement of our now having aircraft that are capable of being refuelled in the air when in fact we do not have the facility to carry out such refuelling. We have to rely on our friends. Also, there is no sign of an airborne early warning capability. So one doubts the genuine ability of our Air Force to meet its responsibilities as set out in this defence paper. Exercise Diamond Dollar was worth every penny it cost in that it revealed that our one and only division can sustain operations for only five to six weeks. As honourable senators would know, Defence Force wastage is presently the subject of a committee inquiry, suffice it for me to say a loss of 13 per cent of our Defence Force in one year translates into a loss of some 9,000 skilled officers and men. Male officer resignations have doubled from a 10-year average of 5.4 per cent. It is interesting to note that as from last July, when male officer resignations passed the 10 per cent level, statistics ceased to be made available. What I am saying in summary, therefore, is that even if this Government had the right attitude, even if it took joint regional defence responsibility seriously and believed in that concept-which it does not, as indicated by the lack of substance in this statement and the lack of serious reference to it in previous statements-we would not have the defence capacity to meet that responsibility. I therefore regret that this paper does not come clean. It is not a statement setting out that the Government realises the error it has made and realises that this is simply rhetoric aimed at self-justification. I regret that the statement does not acknowledge that the Government has let down our regional friends and allies, that it does not accept our regional responsibilities and does not recognise that regional sensitivities are important. I regret that the statement does not set out a program for building into our Defence Force a capacity to make a worthwhile and meaningful contribution to joint regional defence. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(5.53) —The Senate is discussing this evening the parliamentary statement by the Minister for Defence, Kim Beazley, which the Minister has titled `Self-Reliance and Co-operation: Australia's Regional Defence Policy'. If this is a policy statement, something is terribly wrong with the Australian Labor Party. I believe the statement would be far better renamed `Beazley's Bunkum and Bull' because it is an insult to the intelligence of this Parliament. It is a totally inadequate set of guidelines for our regional neighbours to be able even to look at and take reference from, and as far as every Australian citizen is concerned it is a disgraceful compromise of the defence forces of this country. It is also worth noting that of the 32 Labor Party senators, not one has had the guts to back up Minister Beazley. The Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray), who tabled the statement, merely had it incorporated in Hansard and not one other member of the Labor Party in this place has been prepared to speak on this important document. I believe there have been some eight speakers today-a number from the Opposition, Senator McLean from the Australian Democrats, Senator Vallentine and Senator Wood. I certainly would not agree with the standards and viewpoint put forward by Senator Wood or Senator Vallentine, which is quite contrary even to that of the Labor Party. Their view is basically that we can solve these sorts of problems in the preschool; we can teach the children that we do not need to fight and can keep them in some sort of special creche for the rest of their lives. That is a totally inadequate defence policy. I am bemused by the fact that this statement sets out to look at our regional defence policy. I read the document through and kept asking who I could send it to in the Northern Territory electorate, which has a strong interest in the defence of our nation, and how would that person respond to the statement. What would be the issues that would have an effect on the defence community in the Northern Territory, as well as the business community and the general population? What would be their interests? In fact, the more I read the Minister's statement the more I am sure it would be perceived as nothing but a puzzling and irrelevant document. I look at it from a Northern Territory perspective. The Territory does have very high involvement in Australia's defence establishment. It holds a strategic position not only in Australia but in all of Asia. The Northern Territory has the existing facilities of Pine Gap and the Jindalee communications base, the Tindal Air Force base, the Royal Australian Air Force base in Darwin, the Army's Norforce, and naval patrol operations as well as naval and other communications facilities. This statement contains no integration of these facilities with the Government's supposed policies and objectives for, as referred to in the title of the statement, Australia's regional defence policy. If any member of the defence forces in the Northern Territory were to read this report, he would wonder what his role was in the mosaic, the picture, that he is meant to have some firm understanding of. The business community, particularly of the Northern Territory, relies on a strong regional defence policy. There is no security effort for that business community, or for mining and tourism interests. What about oil exploration in the Timor Sea and the Cartier and Cocos (Keeling) islands? There is no substance in the statement on which the fishing industry of northern Australia can rely, and of course there is a special link between the Northern Territory and the Cocos and Christmas islands, out in the Indian Ocean. They are totally ignored by this statement. There is no reference to the strategic matters regarding these areas. There is no mention in the statement of industrial support and how that would link up or tie in, and there is no reference whatsoever to the infrastructure of the urban community planning that must go hand in hand with any proper and rational defence policy. Mr Beazley's statement is nothing but a series of paragraphs, pulled out of a word processor, that have obviously been accumulated from many other speeches. Obviously Mr Beazley, as the Minister for Defence, is now far too busy in his new role as Leader of the House. Perhaps he ought to re-look at his role, because he is in danger of becoming the ringmaster of the Barnum and Bailey circus if this is the quality and standard of work he is to put out. Mr Beazley refers near the beginning of his statement to the actions that the Government is taking in our regional defence relations, and further on refers to a strategy to achieve a self-reliant defence posture. I cannot find the substance to back up those initial statements by the Minister. Sure he says that there has been in recent years a concentration on the force structure of the Australian Defence Force and a concentration on capital equipment, but then the Minister goes on to talk about our regional priorities as a matter of relying on the lessons of history, geography and commonsense. But this document is totally devoid of any commonsense. It is totally lacking it. I will give a simple example of the Minister's own words which are so much like those of the Government-so out of touch. He says: Our area of direct military interest- which is referred to as being- 4000 miles from east to west and 3000 miles from north to south- that is miles, not kilometres. He is so out of touch that his language has not yet caught up with the right vocabulary. All the nations of South East Asia and the south-west Pacific form the very broad area of our strategic interests. The Minister goes into a lot of detail on page 9 of his report. He says that the series of visits he undertook-the junkets, very obviously-had as an aim: . . . to learn how our neighbours perceive strategic developments in our region. He also says: I was struck by the much more balanced discussion of strategic issues among our neighbours than is often seen here. For heaven's sake, how long has he been the Minister for Defence? The Labor Government has had control of this portfolio for some five years yet the Minister comes out with statements like that. As Senator MacGibbon said earlier in the debate, there is not one instance in this report on our regional defence policy that points to any firm and consistent relationship with the United States of America. There is absolutely no mention of the United States of America as having any relevance to our regional defence policy. On page 10 of the report the Minister says: . . . the region is continually changing and becoming more complex. But then what is said? Beazley does not look at the factors which lie behind this statement. The questions are therefore posed: If the region is continually changing, if it is becoming more complex-and I can accept those statements-what are the sociological pressures that are building up, what are the population forecasts, the economic influences, the technological advantages and disadvantages and influence of the emerging Asian countries and nations? Can the Minister not look some 20, 30 or 40 years ahead of where we are today, instead of being totally patronising and pappy. The Minister spends a few paragraphs referring to our capital equipment plans, to the FA18s that are coming and to the fact that a whole new base is going into Tindal in the Northern Territory. He talks about a few planes for surveillance across the top or in some of the Pacific areas. He talks about a few ships for naval excursions. But let us look at what this statement is. It is about regional policies. If we get down to analysing it by country and the regions with which we have this intimacy, what comes out? For Malaysia and Singapore the Minister talks about a small aircraft presence, the army rifle company and rotational deployments. All the Minister talks about in relation to Thailand are army exercises, joint and in small numbers. He talks about Brunei and training. When he talks about Indonesia he does not talk about anything. He leaves a whopping great question mark hanging over the entire regional issue. Why has he done that? Surely as part of the development of this policy he is well aware of not only the Government's defence policies but also the foreign affairs relationships and the terribly important role that we must have in a partnership with Indonesia. I had the privilege yesterday of meeting the new Indonesian Ambassador to Australia, Mr Roesman. We sat down and talked about the very things that I would expect to be in this report about Indonesia and its long term plans and pressures and what it is fearful of. Indonesia would be far more fearful of countries to the north than it would ever be of us. When the Minister talks about Papua New Guinea he concentrates on training, advisory assistance, army engineering and naval facilities on Manus Island. Those matters are small-infinitesimal-in this area. There is no structural tying together of what the statement is about. When the Minister talks about Fiji he has to admit we have put our relationship into suspended animation and had to review our relationship-but that is all it is, a review. There is a patrol boat program for the south-west Pacific islands, but if we look carefully at what is in the section on page 27 of the report, we see that the Minister does nothing but trivialise this patrol boat and naval presence in the south-west Pacific. The Minister said: For example, learning from our early experiences, we have decided from now on to install air-conditioning in the Pacific patrol boats, and to retrofit it to those already delivered. He goes on in a similar sort of manner: For example, the Cook Islands has asked us to look at installing extra freezer capability in their boat . . . We are trivialising a policy on regional defence when we get down to talking about a few air-conditioning units and a few freezers. When we talk about our relationship with New Zealand, the Minister says that is getting into bed, or as he says: . . . in association with the New Zealand department of Defence and the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency- the Department- is sponsoring a maritime surveillance seminar in which all member countries of the South Pacific Forum will participate. The level of defence debate and discussion with New Zealand is such that we now have to rely on seminars. This is typical of where the Labor governments in New Zealand and Australia have got to, that on an important issue such as defence, we have got down to pulling in the fishing agency and talking about maritime surveillance. Concerning Vanuatu, Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands, again there are simple words of co-operation. The Minister admits to succumbing to the `charm and peace' of Honiara when he visited there. I say to the Minister, `Come on!'. Senators MacGibbon, McLean, Newman and Hill shared my frustration with this report. The Minister's diary of travel does not go to the core of the defence issue. Nor does Mr Beazley share a view of what our regional neighbours think of us. He visited them and discussed things with them. Is he going to leave the matter entirely to Mr Hayden? What do the countries to the immediate north or in the South Pacific have as expectations of us? Where do they perceive any short or long term threats? What do they see as the long term options and where do we fit into partnership with them? What are their perceptions of the role of India, a country with 800 million people; of China with 1,000 million; Vietnam with 60 million; and Russia with 300 million? Thirty-three per cent of the world's population is immediately to the north of our so-called region. There is no mention of India, China, Vietnam or Russia and how they have any impact on the development of our regional policies. That is not even mentioned or picked up. I am disappointed that Minister Beazley has gone to water. The Australian Labor Party, very obviously, is adopting the New Zealand policy line on defence. If Beazley cannot manage, can the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden? He is chuffing around the Middle East at the moment. What sort of statement can we expect from him when he returns? Will it be couched in terms similar to this, that he is succumbing somewhere to the charm and peace of a particular place? I anticipate that when Hayden gets back there will be a formal statement to this Parliament. The debate in this place should be decent, of a high calibre, of a high standard and from all parties. I think the worst feature of what has happened here today was the total deficiency, inadequacy and abrogation of its duties of the Labor Party in that not one senator from the Labor Party was prepared to speak on this important subject. Senator Stone —They are not interested in defence. Senator TAMBLING —Obviously, and very obviously not interested in Mr Beazley either. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(6.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Communications Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 will amend the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, the Postal Services Act 1975, the Radiocommunications Act 1983, and the Telecommunications Act 1975. The principal changes made in the Bill are intended to: streamline the procedures by which OTC, Australia Post and Telecom Australia can enter into hedging contracts; enable Australia Post and Telecom Australia to issue securities not guaranteed by the Commonwealth; clarify and strengthen the law relating to the sending of explosives and other dangerous goods through the mail; confirm the Minister's power to test equipment as part of the process of issuing licences under the Radiocommunications Act; place the practice of type-testing radiocommunications equipment on a statutory basis; and provide a statutory power to prohibit the supply, operation or possession for the purpose of supply or operation of devices intended to cause interference with the legitimate use of the radio frequency spectrum, or likely to cause interference to radiocommunications in such a way as to endanger life or property. Various other amendments of the four Acts of a purely formal or technical nature are also included. The amendments to the Radiocommunications Act 1983 relating to testing are expected to provide a very small increase in revenue through testing fees. All other amendments are expected to have no financial impact. I will deal first with the amendments to the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, the Postal Services Act 1975, and the Telecommunications Act 1975. The Commissions established by these three Acts (respectively OTC, Australia Post, and Telecom Australia) each have power to enter into hedging contracts as part of their normal trading activities. Each Commission must also obtain the approval of the Minister for a contract involving the payment or receipt of money in excess of a specified amount. At present each of the three Acts contains a definition of `proposed contract' the effect of which is to require the respective Commissions to await Ministerial approval of a trading contract before entering into a hedging contract in respect of it. Given the speed with which currency values can fluctuate, it is commercially vital for the Commissions to be able to enter into hedging contracts as soon as the trading contract is negotiated, otherwise the benefit of the hedging contract may be totally lost. The Bill therefore amends the three Acts to permit this. Secondly, the Postal Services Act 1975 and Telecommunications Act 1975 presently require securities issued by Australia Post and Telecom Australia respectively to be guaranteed by the Commonwealth. This obligation is commercially unnecessary and is inconsistent with the flexibility that exists with other non-prescribed forms of borrowing, and the Bill therefore removes it. These amendments will place the two authorities in the same position as other Commonwealth business enterprises (other than financial institutions) where guarantees of borrowings may be provided at the discretion of the Treasurer. Thirdly, the Bill amends the Postal Services Act 1975 to clarify and strengthen the law relating to the sending of explosives or other dangerous goods or substances through the post. Honourable senators will remember the explosion at the Brisbane Parcels Centre in January 1987 which seriously injured a postal worker. This incident focused attention on the need to significantly tighten the legislation relating to the carriage of explosive or other dangerous substances in the mail. The proposed new section makes it an offence to send explosives through the mail and provides for acceptance of dangerous or deleterious substances on conditions determined by the Commission. The current section 100 of the Postal Services Act 1975 does not clearly differentiate between those items which are prohibited from transmission by post and those which may be conditionally accepted. The proposed new section also significantly increases the penalties for such offences. This proposed new section 100 is but one of the measures being taken to minimise the risks to postal workers through the carriage of dangerous goods in the mail. Australia Post is working closely with unions on a comprehensive preventative program that includes training programs for staff receiving parcels, contact with companies likely to be sources of dangerous goods, especially explosives, and work to secure the co-operation of other postal authorities. The Bill amends section 58 of the Telecommunications Act 1975 to increase the monetary penalties from $40 to $500 in relation to disciplinary action. An increase of this order was one of the recommendations contained in the report of Mr F. H. R. Vincent QC, on a review of allegations against Telecom Australia. The level of the monetary penalty proposed is in line with a similar provision in the Public Service Act following amendment to the Act in 1986 as apart of the Government's streamlining reforms. Fourthly, the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 is amended to correct a drafting error, and the Telecommunications Act 1975 is amended to render its language gender-neutral. Next I shall describe the amendments to the Radio- communications Act 1983. There are two major and several minor amendments. The first of these amends the Act to provide a statutory basis for the issue of a certificate to be called a `type approval certificate'. When issuing licences for the operation of radiocommunications transmitters or receivers under the Act, the Minister or his or her delegate is required to take into account the effect on radiocommunications of the proposed operation of the transmitter or receiver, and therefore needs to know the characteristics of the transmitter or receiver. The purpose of the amendment is to permit manufacturers or importers of equipment to submit samples of equipment for testing and obtain a certificate to the effect that the equipment has no undesirable effect on radiocommunications. Where such a certificate is issued in respect of a particular model of, say radiocommunications transmitter, the holder of the certificate will be authorised to affix a statement to each example of that model that such a certificate has been issued. When issuing licences covering the operation of equipment for which a type approval certificate has been issued, the Minister will have no need to examine or test the equipment further. The sections of the Act covering licensing of radio- communications transmitters and receivers are to be amended to place beyond doubt the Minister's power to require applicants for such licences to submit the proposed equipment for testing, if necessary. The second major amendment is to give the Minister power to prohibit particular devices, where the devices are either expressly designed to interfere with the legitimate use of the radio frequency spectrum, or where a device substantially interferes with, or substantially disrupts or disturbs, radiocommunications in a manner likely to endanger the safety of persons or cause substantial loss or damage. The power is to be exercised only after publication of the details of the proposed prohibition, and the giving of reasons for it, and following consideration of any representations which may be received in answer to the notice. Once made, the declaration of the prohibition is to be published in the Gazette and tabled in the Parliament as if it were a regulation. Once a device is prohibited, its supply or operation or possession for the purposes of supply or operation is an offence, subject to fines of $1000 for a natural person or $5000 for a body corporate. This amendment is designed to protect legitimate users of the spectrum from certain devices which are available overseas and may be imported into Australia. Control of such devices under the standards power is not appropriate since standards are intended to apply only to devices which are licensable, and it would be inappropriate to make standards for devices which would never under any circumstances be licensed. Moreover, a standard only applies to devices manufactured or imported after the date on which the standard was made, and therefore does not catch devices manufactured or imported earlier. The mere possession of a prohibited device will not in itself constitute an offence, however, so that a person who owns a device which is subsequently prohibited will commit an offence only if the device is actually used or sold to another person. A less important but still significant amendment is to the provision of the Act allowing a licensee to authorise another person to operate the licensee's equipment. Cases have arisen in the past where fears have been expressed that a person whose licence had been cancelled for breaches of the Act or Regulations might arrange to obtain access to another transmitter by way of such an authority. This amendment therefore provides that a person whose licence has been cancelled cannot lawfully be authorised to operate another transmitter of the same kind as the licence was issued in respect of, for a period of three years, unless that person has been issued with a new licence subsequent to the cancellation. Further, if a person is currently licensed to operate a transmitter, and also holds an authority from another person to operate another transmitter of the same class, if the former person's licence is suspended or cancelled, the authority lapses at the time of the suspension or cancellation. The Bill also amends the Act to extend the range of offences subject to fines in lieu of prosecution by adding to it offences against subsection 65(9) of the Act; that is, offences in the nature of using radiocommunications transmitters for harassing another person by causing interference with radiocommunications. As with other offences subject to fines in lieu of prosecutions, the maximum fine that may be imposed in this way is one-fifth of the sum prescribed as penalty by the Act. The Bill makes a number of minor and consequential amendments to the Act, and also amends it to render its language gender-neutral. The Bill represents further evidence of the Government's commitment to efficiency and sound commercial practice for major government business enterprises such as OTC, Australia Post and Telecom Australia; to the safety of Australia Post's employees and legitimate users of the postal services; and to efficient and equitable use of the radio frequency spectrum, which is a scarce and valuable resource. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(6.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972. The principal amendments bring the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act into line with the Public Service Act 1922, as amended by the Public Service Legislation (Streamlining) Act 1986, in the areas of promotions, transfers, appeals, forfeiture of office and attachment of salary. Provision is also made for the transfer of staff from the Commonwealth Teaching Service to certain other Commonwealth authorities. The Commonwealth Teaching Service established under the principal Act is divided into three parts, or `components'. The two largest components are the ACT schools component and the ACT TAFE component. The schools component consists of teaching staff employed in Commonwealth schools, mainly in the Australian Capital Territory. Teachers employed in ACT TAFE colleges belong to the TAFE component. Staff are made available to the educational institutions in each component by the notional employer, or `relevant authority', of the component. Turning first to the question of promotions and appeals: seniority has been removed as a factor in determining the most suitable applicant for a position, leaving efficiency as the sole determinant. The definition of efficiency has itself been broadened to allow a relevant authority to consider an applicant's potential for future career development and his or her ability to perform the duties of other positions at the same level. In addition, the relevant authority in each component now has the option of promoting or transferring an officer on the advice of a joint selection committee comprising an independent chairperson and either two or three other members agreed between the relevant authority and the appropriate union. Measures have also been taken to reduce the number of appeals. New provisions inserted by the Bill exclude appeals in two situations: firstly, where a person is promoted to a position by a relevant authority acting on the advice of a joint selection committee; and secondly, where a person did not apply for a position. The appeal process has itself been streamlined by removing the need for a Promotions Appeal Board to make full inquiry into the claims of the different parties to the appeal and by substituting a requirement that the board make only such inquiries as are necessary to enable it to form an opinion as to the most efficient of the applicants. It is expected that these changes to the promotions and appeals systems will significantly reduce the time taken to fill positions and there should in general be less recourse to an increasingly lengthy and costly appeal process. There is currently no provision in the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act, or in the determination and awards governing conditions of employment in the Commonwealth Teaching Service, for terminating the contract of an employee who has been absent on unauthorised leave for an extended period or who has left the service without submitting a resignation. Provisions in the Bill similar to the forfeiture of office provisions in the Public Service Act remedy this. Persons retired under the new provisions will have access to a two-tier review process. The manner of application for review will be prescribed by regulations under the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act. It is intended that a relevant authority's decision not to reappoint a person will be reviewable by the Merit Protection and Review Agency. The amendment of the Act to allow a proportion of an employee's salary to be deducted to satisfy debts incurred by the officer will provide a firm legal base for existing practice. Administration costs will be defrayed by the charging of a fee at a rate prescribed by regulations under the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act. Finally, new section 50a, inserted by clause 11 of the Bill, empowers the Minister to transfer staff to another Commonwealth authority where the function performed by the staff is taken over by that authority. The section will allow staff to be transferred from the Service to the proposed ACT Institute of TAFE and the proposed Canberra Institute of the Arts. Ordinances establishing the two Institutes are scheduled to commence in early 1988. The Government proposes to consult with employee representatives about applicable conditions of service before staff are transferred under new section 50a. Conditions of service of staff transferred under the section would remain broadly comparable to those applying immediately before the transfer. Fundamental entitlements, such as superannuation, maternity leave and long service leave, would also be preserved. No additional costs are expected to flow from the implementation of this Bill. Some minor savings are expected to flow from a reduction in the number of appeals required to be determined by Promotions Appeal Boards. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 22 February, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Vanstone had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate- (a) wishes to ensure the protection of the rights of non-custodial parents who have entered into maintenance arrangements to share in the cost of supporting their children at no extra cost to the Commonwealth, by not requiring these agreements to be registered with the Child Support Agency, except in the event that maintenance arrangements are not honoured; and (b) condemns the fact that the welfare of Australian children has rapidly declined under the Hawke Labor Government''. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(6.15) —Last night when this debate was interrupted by the adjournment I was in the middle of my speech. Honourable senators will excuse me if I recap on a few of the points I had already made last night in order to give them the main thrust of my argument. I had mentioned that the Child Care Support Bill was introduced to enforce the collection of maintenance orders issued to non-custodial parents. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised that by 1990 there will be no child living in poverty. However, he did not tell us that the employers were going to bear the main brunt of collecting the money that he promised to supporting parents. The employers have already been lumbered as free collectors of internal revenue. Other collection services provided free by the employers are pay as you earn taxation, Medicare payments, sales tax, fringe benefits tax-here the employers pay the bill as well-and prescribed payments tax. Another collection services is the voluntary deductions requested by employees. The penalties all seem to be on the employer. I cannot find in this Bill any penalties for the people who fail to pay maintenance. The penalties seem to be on the employer who, whether by neglect, design or otherwise, fails to collect maintenance payments. I will list them. Under clause 47 (1) there is provision for a penalty of up to $5,000, 12 months imprisonment, or both, for failure to furnish particulars in the approved form, within the first seven days of the following month. Clause 47 (2) provides that when a deduction has been made from wages and salaries the employer must give written notice to the employees. Failure to do so, even if no deduction is made, attracts a penalty of $1,000. Clause 47 (3) provides that an employer must notify the Registrar in an approved form if an employee leaves his employ. The penalty for failure to do so is another $500. Clause 57 provides that employers are not to prejudice employees because of maintenance commitments. Employers generally have more to worry about in running their business than to discriminate against any particular employee for reasons of this nature. There is a penalty of $2,000 should it be proven that there is discrimination. This point can be used against an employer to start trouble if an employee thinks that he may have been unjustifiably dismissed. Clause 60 refers to the incorrect keeping of records, which could be unintentional or a slip of the pen when there are bookkeepers and junior office girls around the place. That attracts another penalty of $2,000 for the employer. Clause 61 refers to access to premises and requires the employer to provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for an inspector to come in to see what the employer is up to. Again, there is a fine of up to $2,000. Then there is a secrecy provision. In a large or even a small firm many office staff-some senior and some junior-have access to records and if one happens to be guilty of an indiscretion there is another penalty; that is, the penalty about secrecy. The explanatory memorandum provides that this clause will impose an obligation of secrecy on officers who work in these areas. The explanatory memorandum states: For that purpose, an `officer' includes a person who, although not actually appointed or employed by the Commonwealth, performs services for the Commonwealth. I presume that the officer mentioned there is the employer. It continues: In recognition of the serious nature of any breach of this provision, the Bill provides for a fine not exceeding $5,000, or jail for a period not exceeding 1 year, or both. So much for the secrecy provision. I fully realise that such a scheme is needed and has been for many years. But it is another Bill in a long line of Bills that put the burden of operation onto the long-suffering employer with no recompense. I will now read some of the quotes as far as the employer is concerned which appeared in the newspapers when this Bill was mooted. An extract from an article in the Australian of 17 September, headed `Employers defend ``pay packet'' sanctity' read: The experience of employers with garnishee orders has not been a happy one. . . . . Employers should not be involved in selective collection of debts. This is not part of their role as employers. The Age of 17 August in an article said, `This, it says, would be a ``significant intrusion into the employer-employee relationship'' '. I move on to the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 September and remarks made by the welfare lobby: The failure of the Government to target savings worth $150m from the scheme back to other sole parent recipients, also came under fire . . . The article continued: That resentment by employees towards employers knowing their personal position could lead to turnovers in staff with valuable workers leaving if deductions were enforced. Three good articles were published at the time which put the employers' position on collecting these payments, and I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The articles read as follows- Employers defend `pay packet sanctity' Australia's largest employer organisation has said that the Federal Government's Budget decision to centralise child maintenance collections through the Taxation Office destroys the sanctity of the wage packet. The Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) also said employer-employee relationships would be placed at risk. It had warned the Government before the Budget that employers were concerned about being required to collect maintenance payments by making deductions from employees' wages. The new system will be introduced next year. In a letter to the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, earlier this year, the CAI said that the proposal would place `considerable pressure' on employee- employer relationships and might trigger disruption. The letter, obtained by The Australian, said: `The breakdown of marriage and disputes over the custody of children and living and maintenance arrangements are extremely emotional issues which often lead to irrational behaviour on the part of the parties concerned. `The experience of employers with garnishee orders has not been a happy one.' In the letter to Mr Howe dated March 20, the CAI warned of administrative problems involved in further payroll deductions. It concluded: `Employers should not be involved in selective collection of debts. This is not part of their role as employers'. `While enforced deduction of income tax is accepted in our community, in all other respects wages remain sacrosanct. Other deductions can only be made on the authorisation of the employee.' MIKE TAYLOR CAI opposes plan for debt collection By SOPHIE ARNOLD The Confederation of Australian Industry has called for employers to support its opposition to the Federal Government using employers as debt collectors for child maintenance payments. This move is included in the Government's plan to change the present arrangements for child maintenance. The CAI says that employers will be obliged to deduct maintenance payments from employees' wages under a plan by Mr Howe, the Minister for Social Security, to establish a child support agency under the control of the commissioner for taxation. This, it says, would be a ``significant intrusion into the employer-employee relationship''. The CAI, which is represented on a consultative group set up by the Federal Government to discuss the operation of the new scheme, has written to Mr Howe, saying, in part, that the scheme would add to the administration costs of employers and could leave employers liable if employees used assumed names and histories. Mr Howe said yesterday that he had not had direct contact with the CAI on the matter, but the consultative group, led by Mr Justice Fogarty of the Family Court, would certainly look at any concerns the employer group had. ``That committee will be responsible for looking at any submissions and working out what are the specific problems,'' he said. ``We are hoping we can address those as we go along, but there is plenty of time for more discussion before the matter comes up.'' Mr Howe said it had not been decided when to introduce the legislation, but he doubted it would be before the budget next month. Mr Howe said 70 per cent of non-custodial parents were not paying regular support. The new scheme would reform the present system, in which the taxpayer largely carried the financial responsibility for the children of separated parents. Garnisheed wages plan under attack By GLENN MILNE CANBERRA: Employers attacked last night the Federal Government's Budget announcement outlining plans for a maintenance collection agency, warning that the agency could involve companies in explosive domestic conflicts. The Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) raised objections to the proposal, which will legally require employers to garnishee wages for maintenance on behalf of the Tax Office. The failure of the Government to target savings worth $150m from the scheme back to other sole parent benefit recipients, also came under fire from the welfare lobby yesterday. The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) warned that its continued support for the ``increasingly draconian'' system might be jeopardised unless the Government ``immediately'' committed itself to pay a new ``maintenance guarantee'' to sole parents unable to secure payment from their partners. The director of the CAI's National Employers Industrial Council, Mr David Nolan, last night reaffirmed his organisation's opposition to the system, warning it would be very costly to set up. ``Its a political decision and I think a wrong decision,'' Mr Nolan said. Early this year, the CAI sent two letters to the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, outlining their fears about the Child Support Agency. Employers told Mr Howe: That individual employers might be seen as ``a tool of the Family Law system, which is viewed by some employees as having imposed harsh penalties, eg denying or restricting access to children, forcing payments which diminish current lifestyle or taking away savings''; That in small communities such as mining towns, the employer would tend to become involved in domestic situations; That resentment by employees towards employers knowing their personal position could lead to turnovers in staff with valuable workers leaving if deductions were enforced; And deductions could affect an employee's desire to work a full week or penalty shifts with paying the price of being the collection vehicle between the Government and the employee. The letters said that the CAI Industrial Council had examined Government proposals in some detail and concluded that if implemented they would lead to ``considerable pressure being placed on the employee/employer relationship''. ``The breakdown of marriage, and dispute over the custody of children and living and maintenance arrangements are extremely emotional issues which often lead to irrational behaviour on the part of the parties concerned. ``The extent of the problems is illustrated by the high percentage of parents who refuse to comply with maintenance orders. ``The experience of employers with garnishee orders has not been a happy one. It is not uncommon for employees to resign their employment. Senator PANIZZA —The Bill is another imposition which means that the employer has hidden costs. The figure by which wages are multiplied when charged out against a job is already 1.85. In other words, if it costs $100 for a days employment, $185 has to be charged against that job. The Bill will leader to higher costs either for services or for production, and it may lead also to the elimination of some employees. Though the Bill does not go quite as far as the defeated Australia Card legislation in putting all the emphasis of penalties on the employer, nonetheless it has gone far enough. I wonder just how much consultation was had with the employers before this Bill was brought before the Senate. In conclusion, I honestly hope that the Bill will work and bring the irresponsible to face their responsibilities instead of relying on the public purse. I hope that couples will think a little more before entering into relationships without thought to the consequences, and thereby hit their purses. The amendment that the Opposition has before the House, which is mainly aimed at those who are already meeting their commitments, was mentioned a few times last evening. Only 30 per cent of maintenance payments are being collected. This Bill will reduce the 70 per cent not being collected to about 30 per cent, but the 30 per cent who are paying already have honest agreements, and those agreements are working. I do not see why they should be subject to this sort of Bill so that they have to put their affairs into the public eye in front of the Registrar and, what is more, in front of an employer. Believe it or not-and contrary to what Senator Coates mentioned last evening-some divorced couples, some separated couples, and some couples who have been in de facto relationships and have separated remain good friends. Senator Coates said that anyone receiving a payment was not happy to receive it from a former boyfriend, husband or whatever, would rather get it through the mail from a Government enterprise. I do not subscribe to that view whatsoever. As I said, some of those who have made arrangements between themselves are paying far more towards the upkeep of their children, because they are interested in their children, than any Family Court would settle upon. They have been doing that and will continue to do that, and I cannot see for one minute any reason why those people should be brought under the jurisdiction of the proposed Registrar. I know that Senator Peter Durack in times gone by tried to bring forward this sort of Bill, but for one reason or another it was not successful. I compliment him on the work that he has done in the past on the Family Law Bills and also on the Bill before the Senate. As I said, I hope it does work and that it will reduce the pull on the public purse. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.25) —We are discussing the Child Support Bill, which, as all honourable senators would know, is part of a package the Government is bringing forward to try to cut back the amount of public money that is used in supporting children who ought to be supported by their parents. We had an interesting speech earlier from Senator McKiernan. I think he was the first Labor speaker to contribute. Some of the matters he raised I shall refer to as I speak. He, of course, gave us initially his usual exhibition of his fascination with opposition. He rarely begins a speech without talking about the Opposition and what it should do and how it might go about its business. He seems to be almost mesmerised by opposition, and I guess it will not be long before he will be here to enjoy it. The Bill is accompanied by an explanatory memorandum which I would say is one of the most comprehensive explanatory memorandums that I have seen and goes a long way towards assisting in coming to terms with the thrust of this Bill. It sets out in its general outline the areas that are covered, explaining that it is for the collection of maintenance payable by either court order or agreement between the parties in relation to either a child, children, or a spouse. It establishes a Register and a Registrar, who will be the Commissioner of Taxation. It identifies a debt to the Commonwealth that is the substance of such agreement or order payable by one parent to the parent who in fact has the custody of the children. The Act itself indicates that a number of areas will be dealt with by regulation-a great number of areas in relation to exemptions and other matters. I will certainly be looking very closely at the regulations as they come before the Senate, because I think they are extensive; I think we will need to be very certain that anomalies are not created in relation to some of the exemptions and the way the Bill is introduced. I say that in no sense as a criticism, but I think honourable senators ought to be aware of the number of significant areas which are left to regulation. But, as I said, the explanatory memorandum is indeed helpful in understanding the thrust of the Bill and the way it is being developed, and I would say at this stage that it is because of one aspect of the Bill that I very strongly support the second reading amendment which we have put up. I believe there are several reasons why it ought to be supported, and I would hope that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) would have another look at those aspects of the Bill which I will address in speaking to our amendment, because I regard them as significant. I regard the Bill without them as being excessively costly to administer and excessively intrusive. The explanatory memorandum goes into some detail about the financial impact, but that perhaps would be the area in which I think it is weakest in explaining what moneys will be raised. It does mention the figure of $7.6m in 1987-88 and goes on to explain future years. It refers to those figures as net figures without in fact giving any details of the cost to the Commonwealth of administering this. I would suggest that the cost in fact will be very high indeed. I hope that at some stage we will receive more information about the actual costs and the real savings that will result from this Bill. I think it is a pity that more information has not been supplied to enable us to look at it. The cost, of course, goes much further than what it will in fact cost the Commonwealth to administer. The costs will be added to the parties, and there is at least one extra procedure that has to take place in the registration of the Bill. That perhaps is the least of the costs. The most significant area of extra costs-and I would invite honourable senators to recall the matters that Senator Panizza has just referred to-is the cost to employers. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator REID —Before the suspension of the sitting I was expressing my support for the Child Support Bill and my very strong support for the amendment moved by the Opposition. I believe there are very valid reasons why that amendment should be supported. I had commented on the cost of administering this proposed Act, which I believe will be substantial. It is hoped that those details will be made known to us in due course. The impact statement on the financial aspects of this matter indicates the Government's expectations as to net benefits but does not deal with the actual costs. The Minister may be able to give us more information about that aspect later in the night. The real costs of administering this scheme will be borne in fact by the employers. Senator Panizza has already referred in some detail to this aspect. The extra cost to employers will be substantial. Senator Panizza has dealt with the clauses of the Bill and referred to the proposed penalties, the work that employers will be required to do and the impact of that upon them. In many instances in the end the general consumer again will pay for the support to be provided in this area. However, I do not think we should underestimate the impact that this scheme will have on a small firm. It will be an extra burden on a firm which already employs professional accounting staff, but for many smaller businesses it will impose an extreme burden. Such businesses are already working flat out seven days a week in an effort to make ends meet and survive. They are doing their own bookkeeping and running that side of their operations. We really need to have regard to what we are doing when we ask such businesses to be involved in this scheme, especially having in mind the added burden of the penalties they face if they do not keep to the timetable that is to be imposed upon them. The very least the Government could do to compensate them is to make significant tax cuts to business as a means of offsetting some of this extra burden. This is not the first impost that is being placed on business. Already business has to deal with sales tax, petrol stations must deal with petrol duty, and generally businesses must deal with tobacco tax and excise and provide information to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I could spend the rest of the evening detailing what business already has to do to support government in doing what it wants to do. All that is quite apart from having to pay income tax and imposts of that nature. The burden being placed on business should not be overlooked. I suggest that the Senate or some part of the Parliament should establish a committee to monitor the impact of all aspects of this legislation, but in particular its impact upon employers. There is no doubt that the social security payout is enormous. I think the explanatory memorandum deals with that aspect. We should now be seeing the benefits that will flow from the abolition of the abuse of social security payments that has gone on for a very long time under section 75 (2) (f) of the Family Law Act. It is not doubted that many hundreds of thousands of arrangements have been put in place using that section as the basis for keeping the maintenance payment by the non-custodial parent to the very minimum to ensure that the recipient remained eligible to receive the maximum pension available. In future maintenance orders should be made on the basis of the ability of the parent to contribute to the support of a child, and the social security payment should be used for its true purpose. Significant improvements would have been effected to the Act had the Government supported Senator Durack's Bill when it was before the Senate in 1983 and 1985. It is a pity that that opportunity was missed. Certainly, as has been pointed out, this Bill goes much further than Senator Durack's Bill, but Senator Durack's legislation could have been amended in any event when the Government finally got around to it. But at least it is being done at this time. I was intrigued at Senator McKiernan welcoming Opposition support for the Bill. In fact, one might also say that the Government is finally getting around to supporting this legislation. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in his second reading speech, said that 70 per cent of those who are supposed to be receiving maintenance are not receiving regular payments. It is my view that the Bill ought to be redrafted to incorporate the amendment moved by the Opposition. If a person wants to receive a pension or wants to dip into the public purse, of course that person's order or agreement must be registered. If a person does not want to receive a pension but wants his or her maintenance payments to be collected by the Registrar, of course the agreement must be registered. But if a person does not want to receive a pension and does not want his or her maintenance payments collected by the Registrar, I think it is offensive that that person must still have the agreement registered. It is almost as though Big Brother is keeping track no matter what. It is expensive to require the registration of all these extra agreements. It is intrusive of the Government to be involved in those agreements. If a person subsequently wants the Registrar to enforce an order or a person wishes to apply for a pension, surely procedures can be laid down whereby that person is able to register the agreement and for that agreement to operate from that point onwards. It is totally unacceptable to me and it is intrusive of the Government to word clause 23 as it appears in the Bill. Clause 23 (2) reads: The payee of the registrable maintenance liability shall, within 14 days after the day (. . . called the `relevant day') on which the order is made by, or registered in, the court or the agreement is registered in, or approved by, the court, furnish to the Registrar a duly completed approved form in relation to the order or agreement. As an aside I would say that in many instances that is one of the areas in which the litigants will be put to extra expense because of the legal costs involved. Clause 23 (3) reads: . . . the payee is not required to furnish the form to the Registrar if the payee, within that period of 14 days, elects, by furnishing a duly completed approved form to the Registrar, not to have the registrable maintenance liability enforced under this Act. Under both of those provisions the agreement must be registered. That is the point that the Opposition's amendment is trying to make. Why does the Government need to be so intrusive as to try to insist on including that provision as well? I think that is the big flaw in this legislation. Clause 23 (4) indicates that the Registrar, having received a court order or an agreement, must himself enter it in the Child Support Register within 28 days. Of course, that is appropriate. He must do that so that he is able then to deal with the order or agreement in the appropriate fashion. Where the payee of a registrable maintenance liability who is required to furnish to the Registrar a duly completed approved form fails to do so within the period specified, the Registrar shall, even though the form has not been furnished, register the liability under the Act by entering particulars of the liability in the Child Support Register. I was intrigued as to how he would do that until I read in clause 112 that an order having been made by a court or a maintenance agreement having been registered, the court shall within 28 days send a certified copy of that order or agreement to the Registrar. So the Registrar will receive that information in any event. While that provision remains, the couple who comes to a perfectly reasonable, civilised settlement of their divorce and the arrangements for their children's maintenance and who puts that settlement into an agreement cannot be left alone. That agreement must be registered and it must come under the eagle eye of the Commissioner of Taxation who will be administering this Act. I cannot repeat too often that that is intrusive and offensive. Surely people should be allowed to be divorced with dignity and to reorder their affairs in a way that suits both of them, and they should be allowed to live their lives without this sort of intrusion. As I said, if one wants to dip into the public purse to help support children this information must become known. There will be many instances where the pension will be virtually the sole income of a custodial parent. Many custodial parents are low income earners and no other maintenance will be payable. In discussing this matter we should not forget that this group makes up a substantial number of those in receipt of the pension at present. This clause provides for a penalty of $1,000. If a man or a woman is attempting to evade paying maintenance, if they do not have the money or they have got themselves into debt, a fine of $1,000 will virtually be laughable. It is not a real sanction in attempting to get people to accept their responsibilities. Throughout the Bill there are huge financial penalties, which will be burdensome for small businesses and others, but there does not seem to be any regard for trying to make the system work, other than trying to make it look as though one is trying to make it work. There are other provisions about the courts sending the maintenance orders on. The Bill goes on to deal with the debts due to the Commonwealth and how they shall be distributed. As I said, I support the principle of the Bill and I certainly hope that it will work. However, there is one major flaw in it which I hope the Government will correct. It is interesting to note this statement in the Minister's second reading speech: The government is committed to ensuring that by 1990 no child need live in poverty. The child support scheme is central to achieving that objective. That is one aspect of this legislation that cannot pass without comment. The Government seems very significantly to pin its hopes on this legislation, along with the family assistance package which was brought in recently, to meet its commitment that no child will live in poverty by 1990. We all know that the family assistance package has been significantly eroded for the many thousands of families whose rent has very smartly been increased. There are many other ways in which the Government needs to deal with the reasons why many children are living in poverty or very poor circumstances. As recently as December last, the chairman of the National Committee of Non-Government Organisations for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, Bishop Peter Hollingworth, indicated that 850,000 children were living in poverty, mostly because of the high housing costs their parents are forced to pay. Over 700,000 Australian households are living in poverty after they have paid for their housing. Some people are paying up to 60 per cent of their low incomes to provide shelter for themselves and their children. The Smith Family quite recently confirmed these figures. In October last it released figures showing that after five years of the Hawke Government 700,000 more people are living in poverty. In any event, the Bill we are dealing with tonight will not solve the problem foremost of these people who are not likely to get much in the way of maintenance outside the pension. One hundred thousand Australians are homeless and 20,000 of them are teenagers or younger children. One hundred and sixty thousand people in this country are on public housing waiting lists. The Australian Council of Social Service, as recently as November 1987, painted a similar grim picture. The Government claims that the family assistance package is designed to help solve these problems by the target date of 1990 but, according to the studies done by the Social Welfare Research Centre on the impact of the package, in 1990 400,000 children will still be living in poverty. There are many other areas of concern: the Government's housing policy, the cost of mortgage repayments for many low income earners who have been enticed into buying as a means of trying to prevent the cost of rent going up, the drop in the number of housing starts in 1986-87, the predicted fall that is expected for this year and the amount of interest that people are paying on their mortgages. These are all major factors contributing to child poverty. They will not be redressed by the Child Support Bill. There are other measures which the Government must take. I refer to the question of health care. Many of the families we are concerned about are not in a position to take out private health cover. They are forced to rely on the Medicare system. Approximately 100,000 Australians are on waiting lists in need of surgery. Those who have income are paying 1.25 per cent of their income, in spite of promises that they would pay only one per cent. This goes nowhere near the actual cost. They are really paying 3.15 per cent by way of levy. The rest goes in through the taxation system. Taxpayers are paying a very high price for a very poor service. Since Medicare was introduced items have constantly been removed from the Medicare list, both in the service area and in the pharmaceuticals area. So the people at the lower end of the income scale who have to depend on Medicare are paying a great deal and getting far less than they were getting a few years ago. The number of public hospital beds under Labor has declined by more than 10 per cent at the same time as this Government's policies have meant that there are more people in the queues. Many of them could afford to cover themselves with health insurance but they do not have to. They are in the queues keeping the people who need to be there and who are entitled to be there at the back of the queue. If we look at the annual report of the Department of Health we find that in 1986 the number of public hospital beds was 66,159, whereas in 1983 there were 74,229 public hospital beds. With a policy like Medicare one would have expected the numbers to have gone in the other direction. There are many reasons why children are living in poverty. I have referred only to some of them. I remind the Government that it cannot rely on the Child Support Bill to get it off the hook in regard to its promise that by 1990 no child will live in poverty. There are many other things the Government needs to do in addition to smartening up the arrangements for the collection of money which ought to be paid by way of maintenance. In the minds of many the question of access to the children of the marriage is very significant. Many non-custodial parents, men and women, take the view that why should they pay maintenance if they are not getting access. It is a real and deep problem. The question of access, of having adequate resources for Family Court counsellors really to get close to the people who have problems in coming to terms with their situation, is essential. I will not develop that thesis tonight. However, we cannot talk about maintenance without acknowledging that access is a very significant area which I hope the Government will focus on before too long. I urge the Senate to support our amendment for the reasons I have referred to. I believe that the Bill should be amended to accommodate it. I also believe that the Senate should set up a monitoring committee to oversee the regulations of which, as I have indicated, there will be many, to oversee the problems that will be faced by businesses as they get used to this legislation, accommodate it and attempt to alleviate those problems, and see that generally the legislation works and that parents come to terms with contributing what they should be contributing towards the support of their children. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(8.19) —I thank the Opposition and the Australian Democrats for their support for the Bill and acknowledge the contribution made by many of them to this debate. Unlike some debates in this place, generally speaking it was of a high standard, with only a couple of exceptions. There would appear to be general agreement that there must be some reform to ensure that more parents provide support for their children. There would appear to be general agreement that as a key issue for government the poverty of Australian children looms large. I shall go through the complaints and the criticisms of the Bill, so far as we have been able to record them, taking them one by one. First, Opposition senators, in particular Senators Vanstone, Walters and Knowles, complained about the Government's delay in introducing the child support scheme. I think we should look at the history of how long it has taken to get the Bill in before we talk about delay. Immediately after the Government's election in 1983 it moved to establish the national maintenance collection inquiry. That inquiry reported in 1984. The Government did not act on all of its recommendations, for three main reasons: one, it did not adequately address the question of the amount of maintenance orders; two, it did nothing about seeing that maintenance orders are regularly updated; and three, it did not address the problem of the small number of custodial parents with maintenance arrangements. The Government therefore decided that far more fundamental and far-reaching reform was necessary. Cabinet then established a special sub-committee on maintenance and it published a discussion paper in October of 1986. In March 1987 we announced that we were proceeding with the child support scheme, and that is the centrepiece of this Bill that we are debating tonight. It is interesting to note that Mr Howe, the Minister for Social Security, in his tour of the United States in January came across a great many people who had set up similar child support schemes in the various States of the United States and their main comment to him was that they were impressed at just how fast the Australian Government had been able to move. They understand the complexities that are involved in a move of this kind. They know that we have not delayed; rather, that we have been thorough, careful and have made sure that all of the issues have been resolved. The people in the United States know that we have not delayed; it is only people here who do not seem to be able to get the message. The other claim that I find even more irritating-- Senator Walters —Only because of what has happened in the past. Nothing was done in 1975. Senator RICHARDSON —I will devote some special time tonight to Senator Walters. Just be patient. We are going to get there. Senators Vanstone and Reid-and I might say Senator Walters as well-have continually made the point that the Government has done no more than implement that which Senator Durack proposed some time back. I think we should have a look at what Senator Durack proposed. His propositions included a number of methods of dealing with these problems. For instance, he suggested that we should deal with defaulters by throwing them in goal. I would have thought that most modern societies had decided that debtors prisons should have been got rid of 100 years ago. In some places it took a long time to do so but one would not have thought that such a harsh and ineffective means of punishment would be appropriate in the modern day. Senator Reid suggested we are simply implementing Senator Durack's Bill but I think she will have to look long and hard to find any provision like that in the Bill that is before us tonight. Senator Vanstone —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The Minister is misrepresenting, as I understand it, the speeches of both-- Senator McKiernan —You don't know your Standing Orders. Senator Vanstone —If the honourable senator wouldn't mind I would like to finish my point or order before he says whether it is a point of order or not. My point of order is that Senator Reid, Senator Walters and I are being misrepresented. What we have been saying is that the Government should have accepted Senator Durack's amendments, not that that is simply all it is doing now. If the Minister does not understand that, I suggest that he refer to the Hansard. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Minister, will you accept the explanation from Senator Vanstone? Senator RICHARDSON —No, I certainly will not, Madam Acting Deputy President. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —All right. There is no point of order. Senator RICHARDSON —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I was trying to point out that we believe that there were great deficiencies in the legislation Senator Durack proposed and that that was why it was not accepted. Furthermore, Senator Durack proposed to prevent the courts looking at social security entitlements when assessing maintenance. Again, one will not find that in this Bill. The family law amendment legislation completely overhauls the criteria for the courts to consider social security entitlements. Senator Vanstone —Has your speech writer spoken to one of your other Ministers? Senator RICHARDSON —One good thing about speech writers is that fortunately they have, in me, someone who can read, and who does not battle like the honourable senator did earlier. If one turns to the real argument in the Opposition's amendment, the question of compulsion, one realises what the Opposition is all about. The Opposition's amendment refers to people who are supporting their children without resort to pensions and benefits and expresses concern that agreements in those cases not be required to be registered with the Child Support Agency. I think that is a fair rendition of what the honourable senator proposed. There is clearly great confusion in the Opposition about what is being proposed, so I hope that I will be given the opportunity to explain the Government's policy in some detail. A major defect in child support is the lack of any national register of child support orders and agreements. Currently they are filed in magistrates courts, supreme courts, in Family Court of Australia registries and in all sorts of places all over the country. In the end that creates enormous problems for those who deal with the system. I will give an example. If someone gets an order in a far-flung part of Australia, shall we say, Broome, Kununurra or wherever, and then the custodial parent chooses to move to a capital city, say on the east coast, be it Sydney or Melbourne, any attempt to vary that order obviously meets with immediate problems. Often it has to be dealt with in the place of origin of the order. If that is the case, that involves enormous difficulties for parents in relation to travel and it becomes a real trial for anyone to participate in enforcement proceedings. Getting orders from the clerk of the court on one side of the country across to the other is an extraordinarily difficult exercise for anyone to undertake, let alone a person who is a single custodial parent who is very often suffering from deprived circumstances. The first thing we wish to do is to move to a comprehensive national register so that separated parents can enforce orders without the practical difficulties I have just outlined coming into play wherever they live in Australia. Whenever a custodial parent is not on a pension or benefit there is no compulsion to participate in this scheme in any way. I think that is the fundamental misunderstanding. All orders of the courts made after the commencement of the Child Support Act will be entered on the register, so we will achieve the national register that I mentioned before. But whenever the custodial parent is not on a pension he or she can simply choose not to participate in the scheme by just notifying the Registrar to do nothing. If that occurs nothing will happen. The order is simply on the national register for either parent to enforce or to vary if they choose to do so. Senator Vanstone —But they will be on the register. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Vanstone, in speaking about the amendment, referred to cases where the parties agree not to participate. The Bill looks after this by permitting the custodial parent to opt out. What it does not do is what Senator Walters thinks that it should do. Senator Vanstone —But they will need to get themselves off the register. Senator RICHARDSON —I will answer Senator Vanstone's interjection in a moment. The scheme permits the non-custodial parent to choose to have the scheme not apply. Surely the whole ethos, the whole ethic, of the Bill runs against that. If the non-custodial parent could decide it could force more and more custodial parents into putting up with lengthy delays in receiving maintenance, lengthy delays which ensure their children have to live in poverty. That is something we will simply not allow. That is why in those cases where the custodial parent wants it to happen collection will occur. The Government is committed to ensuring that custodial parents receive their maintenance on a timely, regular basis. If we were to listen to the Opposition on this occasion, that just would not be possible. Senator Vanstone —That is rubbish. Senator RICHARDSON —I think the honourable senator's suggestions are rubbish, and I am trying to outline why. If a custodial parent makes the judgment that he or she needs the assistance of the Child Support Agency to get that maintenance on a timely, regular basis, we do not believe that we should say, `You cannot use this agency to get your money, you have to go out and get it yourself. If there are delays, if something goes wrong, then you can notify us'. What does that mean? That means we are going to say to those custodial parents, `For a few months you will have to put up with nothing and explain to the children why there is not enough food on the table every night'. I do not expect Senator Vanstone or anyone on that side to understand the problems of the poor. Nonetheless, we are going to make sure that the poor are looked after, and that is what this is about. I assure the Senate that where a custodial parent, who is not on a pension or benefit-- Senator Walters —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It is a well known fact, and it has been said by so many people, that the Labor Government is out of touch with the poor and that we are the ones who are well aware of what the poor are going through. Senator Richardson can in no way say that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! There is no point of order, Senator Walters. Senator RICHARDSON —I assure the Senate that where a custodial parent, who is not on a pension or benefit, does not want to use the agency, he or she will not be compelled to do so. Senator Vanstone —But they will still be registered. Senator RICHARDSON —Yes, they will still be registered; the order will still be registered. However, they will not be compelled to use the agency. I know that the issues are complex but I cannot give a more simple, clear or unequivocal assurance than that. Even Senator Vanstone will have to concede that. I said I would give Senator Walters an honourable mention, and this is only the beginning as I want to get to the main part later. Senator Walters also argued that non-custodial parents should be required to have maintenance automatically deducted from their salaries only if they default. The whole basis of the Bill runs against this and we do not want to continue any uncertainty in the income of custodial parents or any difficulty. As far as is possible we aim to ensure that those parents can count on a regular amount of maintenance. That is what we are on about, but no-one is ever sure what the honourable senator is on about. (Quorum formed) We believe there is no stigma attached to automatic withholding. We do not want to create such a stigma. If we were to agree with the suggestion that Senator Walters and Senator Vanstone have put up, default would be the trigger, and that is when there would be an automatic stigma. We just do not see the need for that. We will not put custodial parents through any period of insecurity, especially when there is no need. I think they have had years and years of that and, if we are going to end that insecurity and difficulty, we ought to end it now. The next question that was raised by a number of Opposition speakers was the burden on employers. I understand that this places a burden on employers, and obviously any scheme of this kind must. I think the trick is to try to minimise those burdens. There has been extensive consultation with employer groups in an attempt to do just that. Employers will have to make deductions only when advised to do so by the Child Support Agency. They do not have to seek information from the employees on whatever maintenance orders might be in force against them. They will deduct the same amount each pay day, just as they do for credit unions and other organisations. They will be required to do a great deal less than under the present system of garnishee orders which Senator Panizza referred to. I would have thought that we could have done no more. I assure Senator Newman that the penalties about which she complained are maximum amounts. There is no doubt about that. I understand that the Commissioner of Taxation is aware of the difficulties faced by employers who use tax stamps. I think that was raised by Senator Powell earlier in the debate. He will certainly be taking steps to inform them of their duties and will make sure that adequate information is sent to them. I think Senator Powell and perhaps Senator Newman raised the question of marriage counselling and the level of funding for that. The Government remains strongly committed to maintaining that service to families, to help them form stable and healthy marriages. We will continue, even in tight budgetary circumstances, to review that amount, and I hope we can make more available. Senator Walters made some extraordinary claims which I believe I should attempt to answer in the time left to me. First was what I think was a fairly typical claim by Senator Walters, that means testing the family allowance has forced people into the gutter. The reality is that a family has to be on $50,000 or more a year to be affected by the family allowance income test. That just shows her empathy with the poor. If she really believes that anyone on $50,000 has that big a problem, I feel more sorry for her now than I did before. She also said that the Government has not provided one additional cent for families with children and a dependent spouse. I do not know what the families who have just started receiving the family allowance supplement think of that-$22 a week for each child and $28 a week for older children. The Government's approach in hard economic times is to target the assistance to the families who need it most. Senator Walters, that is not the people on $50,000 a year or more; it is the people on a great deal less than that. Let us remember that it was the Opposition that wanted to cut $11 billion from expenditures. I wonder what poor families would escape. I know that Senator Reid referred to the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) in trying to support her argument. I will quote the Director, Mark Lyon, who said this in reference to the family allowance supplement: . . . is the first significant move that any government has made in trying to reduce the number of families living in poverty. When we look at the record of the Fraser-Howard Government on that score, we see that in 1976 the number of children under the poverty line was 370,000. After seven years of those clumsy hands at the tiller, in 1983 Howard and Fraser had managed to increase that number to 830,000. The legacy that we got from Howard and Fraser was a lousy $10 a week for families on social security as child payment. The Hawke Labor Government has increased those payments in every Budget since then. The $500m family package introduced the family allowance supplement. That is 120 per cent higher than the equivalent in March 1983, and 180 per cent higher for older children. Child payments have been increased for both families on social security and for working families. I will give honourable senators some more comparisons. Additional pension benefits were cut by 4.2 per cent for each year that Senator Walters's lot was in power. They have increased by 10.2 per cent a year in real terms under Labor, and 16 per cent, by the way, for 13- to 15-year-olds. Overall, pensions and benefits relating to children fell by 35 per cent in real terms under the previous Government; they have increased by 59 per cent in real terms under this Government. That is the real difference in approach between the parties. We have done something for the poor; the Opposition has done nothing except to remark that the only people who are poor are those receiving under $50,000 a year. If one looks at the targeting that I mentioned earlier, one sees that today about 60 per cent of spending on family assistance goes to the poorest 30 per cent of families. A family in receipt of $400 a week with two teenagers and paying rent will get $27 a week. That is equivalent to a pay rise of $45 a week or 11 per cent. Liberal Party election promises threatened to cut $28 a week from the income of that same family. That is the difference in approach between the parties. Senator Reid referred to a research institute. Let me refer to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which stated that up to one-third of families with children would be worse off under a Howard government. So one is faced with a comparison between a policy characterised by inequity and one that targets assistance for the most needy. If one gets down to the bare bones of those people whom we are trying to help, a low income family with four children aged eight, 10, 13 and 15 would get $15 a week under Howard's child care allowance and $100 a week under the family package. I would have thought that that sort of comparison, even for Senator Walters, was pretty obvious. That characterises the differences in approach. Senator Powell made a number of other points. Senator Walters —Remember the poverty traps. Senator RICHARDSON —I gave Senator Walters's contribution five minutes. I think that is about all it was worth. (Quorum formed) I want to answer some of the queries raised by Senator Powell in her contribution. She raised the issue of advance maintenance for those not helped by this scheme. The Government will address the adequacy of income support for sole parents who do not get maintenance in the context of the Cass review and the Fogarty report-the report of the Child Support Consultative Group. I hope that she can hang on until we have done that. She also raised the question of legal aid funding. I think the Government is considering the likely impact of this scheme on legal aid funding. We shall examine our response. We take into account her comments on the role of community legal centres. Senator Powell also raised the question of the centre at Wollongong as against the Noble Park family conciliation centre. We need to understand that there was a pilot scheme at Noble Park to test different ways of providing family conciliation. On the one hand, the evaluator reported that it was a unique model of service which holds great promise in the family area. On the other hand, the scheme adopted at Wollongong, which was on a one-step basis with all the counselling and advisory services under one roof, was found to duplicate services in other parts of the community. Therefore, we have decided to continue funding Noble Park but not to continue to fund Wollongong. The Hawke Government is maintaining its commitment to helping children in poverty. We will establish a Register and a method of collection so that custodial parents who for so long have had so much difficulty in ensuring regular maintenance payments-for the majority, maintenance payments have been not only rare but impossible to receive-can all get some hope of a fair go. A system will now operate which will enable parents to contribute appropriately to the welfare of their children. Some have never done this in the past. For all the talk of the Hawke Government being slow to act, the reality is that in seven years the Fraser Government did nothing on this score except to announce a promise in its death throes in the election campaign in 1983. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(8.47) —I have some questions for the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), partly in relation to specific clauses of the Child Support Bill 1987. I will tie them into certain comments that he made in response to the second reading debate. As I understood the Minister's reply with respect to the Opposition's amendment, it was that, if we were successful in our amendment and couples who were not making a drain on the taxpayer could not only opt out, as they can, but were not registered, having regard to other clauses in the Bill, the success of pursuing them down that path would mean that at a later date, if a custodial parent changed his or her mind-that is, the arrangement between the parents failed and he or she, whoever was the payer, failed to pay-there would be some extraordinary delay in the custodial parent getting his or her agreement registered. As I understood the Minister's remarks, the amendment that we put forward ought not be proceeded with because it would mean an inordinate delay when there was a breakdown between two parties. At this stage we are talking about parties who make no drain on the taxpayer. It was suggested that if they were not registered at all there would be some sort of delay. As I noted the Minister's comment-and I am not a shorthand expert-he said something like, `We do not think it is appropriate to say, ``You can't use this Agency and make those people wait''.' In other words, that means that they ought not be able to exclude themselves. In light of those remarks of the Minister, I ask whether they apply to people who, but for regulations made under clause 19 of this legislation, the Government is going to exclude. It is all very well for the Minister, as I understand it, to attempt to dish some sort of mini-bucket over the Opposition for suggesting that certain people ought not even be put on the Register and for the Government then to have, by virtue of clause 19, the opportunity-the Minister may well seek advice on this point-to exclude by regulation vast categories of people. The Minister and I both know that the reason is that at the moment his administration cannot cope with providing this maintenance system to all those people. I ask the Minister to respond in terms of the people that his Government intends excluding under clause 19. Will he relate them to his second reading remarks and will he also give us a detailed list of his current proposals of who ought be excluded under clause 19 by regulation? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(8.50) —Going back to what I said in the second reading debate-I spoke from notes so I cannot give the exact words; we will have to wait until the Hansard comes out for that-I was referring to a delay in showing that maintenance payments had not come through. That is what I was referring to. I think that that is what the honourable senator has misunderstood. I hope my words were clear enough. Does that answer Senator Vanstone's question adequately? Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(8.51) —In answer to the Minister, no, it does not. I accept that as a response to the points made in the second reading speech with respect to the people who would be able to be excluded totally from the Register. But I would like some detailed understanding of the people the Government intends excluding by regulation, under clause 19. Is it not a fact that some 200,000 people who would otherwise get the benefit of this legislation will be intentionally excluded by regulation? I would like to know who those people are, what classes of people they are and on what basis the Government is intending depriving them of the benefit of this legislation. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(8.52) —If we go back to the explanatory memorandum, of which all honourable senators have a copy, I will read out the answer. It is on page 3, down towards the bottom, if the honourable senator would care to look: Under the Regulations, it is possible to exclude specified liabilities or liabilities of a specified class. It is intended that this exclusion power will be used to restrict the collection of child maintenance to the types announced by the Minister for Social Security in his statement of 24 March 1987. Broadly speaking, the Registrar will be authorised to collect periodic amounts payable under all orders and maintenance agreements that relate to children of parents who separate after the commencement of this Bill, or-where the parents have not co-habited-to children born after that date. Where the payee is in receipt of an income tested pension, allowance or benefit, the Registrar will be able, upon application, to collect the maintenance whether the child was born before or after the commencement of this Act- whether the parties separated before or after the commencement of the Act. It continues: In his statement, the Minister for Social Security also proposed that, where a child maintenance order or agreement has been lodged for collection with a State or Territory collection agency (including a court), maintenance will be collected by the Registrar. This will now extend to spousal maintenance orders or agreements lodged for collection with such an agency. To enable all these cases to be transferred to the Register, the Bill provides for formal arrangements to be entered into between the Governor-General and the Governor of a State or the Administrator of the Northern Territory or Norfolk Island. In respect of other Territories (including the Australian Capital Territory), the Registrar may make arrangements for the transfer directly. Other categories of orders and agreements may be excluded by regulation. For example, it is expected that certain classes of spousal maintenance will be excluded in accordance with the announcement of the rules for the extension of the scheme to spousal maintenance on introduction of this Bill in the Parliament. Spousal maintenance will also be collectable where there is a child maintenance liability, or the person is over the age of 45 . . . Does that answer Senator Vanstone's question? Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(8.54) —No, I am sorry, but it does not. Let me be somewhat more specific. Let us turn to page 4 of the explanatory memorandum-and I thank the Minister for reading it to me at a pace roughly that at which I would normally read it. As I understand it, that leaves out people who have separated prior to the commencement of this Bill or, where the parents have not cohabited, children born prior to that date. Those people who are not draining the state are totally left out. Is that the case? Senator Richardson —That is the case. Senator VANSTONE —I thought I had understood that part properly. Given that that is the case, is not the Government saying-and let me put my language on it rather than the Minister's-that this child maintenance scheme is not a child maintenance scheme; it is not designed to help all mothers who want to gain or collect maintenance from fathers who have ticked off and are not paying; it is a scheme designed to assist the Government to recoup the cost of the sole parent's benefit, and anyone who is not collecting that benefit, quite frankly, can go jump? Is that not what the clause says? Has not the Minister just agreed with me that it says that? Has not the Minister told me that he could not give a hoot what happens to people who are not drawing from the state? I would be happy for an answer to that question before I proceed to further ones. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(8.55) —Sometimes it is a matter of achieving the possible. The figure of 200,000 that Senator Vanstone referred to earlier probably is correct. We would not have wanted them all to turn up at the agency on the first day. But that does not mean that we will not get around to them. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(8.56) —I find it absolutely extraordinary. Honourable senators here, and people who have been listening on broadcast days when the Child Support Bill has been debated in this chamber and in the other place, have heard members and senators on the other side pass this Bill off as a Bill designed to reform the maintenance system, a Bill that will give benefit to all families, and heard them raving on about what they are doing with the family assistance package, when-with the greatest of respect-that applies to a limited proportion of the population. That is yet another example of where the Government's so-called family concern stops. The Minister has admitted exactly that. I cannot believe that he has admitted it. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to give a better answer because for him to say that the top paragraph on page 4 of the explanatory memorandum basically means that unless people are drawing on the government, the Government does not give a hoot about whether they are having trouble collecting their maintenance payments, indicates that this Bill is not about maintenance collection and about making life easier for sole parents who are left with children: it is only a Bill about the Government recouping some of the costs of sole parents who are draining the Commonwealth. For the Minister to respond, saying, `They are excluded now but we might get around to them'-hunky-dory, kneecap New South Wales-that is just not acceptable and I want a better answer. I give the Minister the opportunity to give a better answer. Senator Richardson —I want a better question. Senator VANSTONE —The Minister could not get a better question. Whether this Government cares about all children in the community or only the children of pension beneficiaries-that is the question. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(8.57) —This Bill sets out for the future of Australia and Australian children, new hope. That is what it does. No government can attempt to redress every problem of the past in one Bill. That just never will be possible. What I said in the second reading debate, as anyone who had listened would know, is that we will be moving to the Register. I did not say that the Register would happen tomorrow afternoon. That cannot be done. I said `moving to the Register'. Senator Newman —Totally misleading. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Newman should have listened to what I said but she did not, as usual. So I have not misled anybody. I have talked about moving to the Register. That is exactly what this Government is going to do. This Bill provides the hope for Australian families that those opposite never provided in all their years in government. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(8.58) —I am somewhat bemused because it seems to me that the Opposition lost out on the amendment to the second reading motion, which, on my reading-and I will ask the Minister a question on this-asked the Government to do, in large measure, the very thing the Opposition is now suggesting the Government should not be doing; that is, that the Register should include people who are not a drain on the government purse, as I think Senator Vanstone referred to them. The Minister has explained to us that the Register will operate for all people who are not in receipt of pensions or benefits, only beyond the date of the passage of this legislation. The Minister is ruling out any kind of retrospectivity of people going on the Register. Another point, which I would have thought the Opposition would be interested in, is whether the Minister feels that this is what is happening in this part of the committee stage, that he is now under fire for doing something which he did not do in not accepting the second reading motion amendment. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(9.00) —If the Minister would like to respond, I am happy to sit down but what I want to raise relates to that point, so it might save him getting up twice. The comments we have just heard from Senator Powell clarify for me why all the people I know vote either Liberal or Labor and not Democrat. I do not need to say any more than that. I cannot understand that an honourable senator in this place believes that to say that certain people should not be included does not mean that they would be deprived of the option of being included if they so desired. What we were seeking to achieve in that amendment was that people who were no drain on the taxpayer would not only be able to opt out, as the Bill provides, but would also not have their agreement registered on this Register. By some extraordinary feat Senator Powell has managed to turn that into-- Senator Powell —Gymnastics. Senator VANSTONE —It is intellectual gymnastics, if that is not putting it at too high a point. She implies that the Opposition means by that that people ought not be able to opt in. That is quite a ludicrous proposition. She dangles the favourite words used by a lot of honourable senators and honourable members who would like honourable senators in the Opposition to oppose something-that there is a retrospective element in the question that I am putting to the Minister about catching people who have either separated prior to the commencement of this Bill or who have children born prior to the commencement of this Bill. The honourable senator is suggesting that for me to seek to move that those people ought to have the opportunity to opt in is, in some way, making the legislation retrospective. I think the honourable senator ought to have a quick look at several of the classic debates on retrospective legislation and she will see that in this case it simply does not apply. We are asking the Minister to explain why those people who are not beneficiaries of a pension, who separated prior to the commencement of this Bill and had children born prior to this, will not be able to opt in. He begs the question. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in the other place has made the point in the second paragraph of the second reading speech that if a person is on a State Register for the collection of a maintenance agreement and is not getting welfare, that person will be lucky enough to be grabbed by this Bill. What that means is that if a person is in the category of people we are talking about-not receiving maintenance, with children and separated before the commencement of this Bill, and not going through a State collection agency-that person misses out. A person cannot opt into this Bill by choice. Is that not the case? A person cannot opt in. If I am right in that, and that is the way it was explained to me, I would like to ask this question: What action will the Government take to advertise to people in that category who are now looking after themselves that in order to cover their backs they ought to pass up looking after themselves and paying maintenance arrangements privately and register with a State agency because that is the only way they will get the benefit of this Bill? What will the Government do to advertise to people who will be excluded by virtue of the first paragraph of the Minister second reading speech when under the second paragraph they could get some benefit but in order to get that benefit they have to register with a State agency to collect their maintenance? That is the only way the legislation will catch them; otherwise all these 200,000 people will be left out. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.05) —I will just go through what the Bill covers and what it can do from here. Senator Walters —You have done that. Senator RICHARDSON —Sometimes I have to do it a lot of times to get it through to the honourable senator, but I am actually addressing Senator Vanstone at the moment. The Bill covers everybody who separates from here on in. That is not in debate. It covers those who are most in need from the past; that is, those on pensions and benefits. There is no dispute about that. It covers all those people who are in dire straits and desperate need. It gives the Government the power to act by regulation in the future to cover those who separated prior to the passing of the Bill and that is what the Government will do. In so far as advocating the course of action that Senator Vanstone has outlined, the Government has no objection with people doing that. At least in coming to terms with the State agencies the Government will have control of the timing. What we are really talking about here is the administrative necessity of introducing a very big scheme and making sure that it is done in stages. These stages mean that those who are most in need are dealt with first. Surely that is just another demonstration, another example, of the Government's commitment to equity? Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(9.06) —I will just briefly ask the Minister to give roughly a yes or no answer to this matter. I agree with what he is saying, that people on pensions, the people prior to the commencement of the Bill that we are talking about-I will not repeat all the words; honourable senators know who I am talking about-will be dealt with. There is no disagreement about that. The Minister says that these are the people who are most in need. The proposition being put to the Minister is that he is not looking after the woman who tries to save the taxpayer-that is not to say that anyone on a pension is not trying-by getting some sort of job and getting off the pension. She is off the pension, but she has still got the essence of a maintenance problem-the problem we are trying to get at with this Bill. We agree with the Bill because we think far too many women have a gigantic hassle in collecting their maintenance. So here is a woman who is not on a pension or benefit. She has got a job by luck or by hook or crook. She has decided that she has got the option-some women do not have the option-of getting a job and not being a burden on the taxpayer. She is battling to look after her kids and she is married to some creep who ticks off. The Minister is telling me that her need to have that maintenance is somehow less just because she is earning her money and someone else is getting it on a pension or benefit. The income they are receiving might be the same. The woman who is earning might be earning an amount just equivalent to the pension. But the Minister is saying that he is not going to help her collect her maintenance. That is one example I put before the committee to indicate the point I am trying to make. This Bill is not about pensions; it is about maintenance. People on pensions are in one category when it comes to collecting maintenance. But there is another category; that is the person who has a job which pays just at, or maybe just above, the pension level. What about the woman-I will not use the words `by luck, hook or crook'-who remarries? Nonetheless there is still a family there-children born of a previous marriage with a maintenance liability. Let us not confuse it with pensions. There is a maintenance liability there. The Minister is saying that because she has chosen to remarry he will not help her or her family to collect the maintenance. What he is basically saying to the women of Australia is, `We will help you collect your maintenance but, my heavens, if you remarry, watch out'. All the people who are included because they are collecting a benefit will do anything to release themselves from getting that benefit and the Minister is going to drop them off or, more specifically, he is not including them now. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.09) —It is correct that these people are not being included now. There can be no denying that. As I have said, it is a staged process. What we are dealing with in the first stage are those who are in most need. Nothing Senator Vanstone has just said changes that. That is not to say that there are not others who have some need. The people who have some need will be dealt with. They will come under the ambit of powers in the Bill, but it will be dealt with by regulation. That is all we are saying. We are covering the bulk now and, over time, we will get to the others. As to the specific commitment about when this will occur, I think we will have to wait to see how the Register goes, but we are not putting this matter on the never-never. It is a matter of high priority and as soon as it is possible it will be done. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.10) —Mr Chairman, I wish to refer to the example that Senator Vanstone put so very clearly to the Minister, of who is in greatest need. We have the two categories of supporting parents. Both may have been issued orders of maintenance against their defaulting partners. One is doing some part time work, perhaps through no fault of her own, and getting a small pension. Another, who has been more successful, has a job and is determined not to be a burden on the taxpayer. That woman is paying child-minding fees and struggling with her low paid job to keep her family together because her defaulting ex-spouse does not give her a penny. Yet the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has the effrontery to say that the woman getting a pension or benefit is more in need than the woman who is struggling to keep her family together and not become a burden on the taxpayer. How can the Minister possibly say that a supporting parent on a regular pension is more in need than the woman I have just described? The only reason the Government has given priority to the woman on a supporting parent's benefit over the woman struggling to keep a job and bring up her children without gathering in maintenance from her defaulting partner is that the Government will recoup $192.8m in 1989-90. That is the only reason in the book the Government could possibly have for giving a woman who has the security of a continuing pension coming in priority over the woman I have described. That is the reason we say the Government is not interested and never has been interested in giving true priority to women with families. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.14) —I want to make the general point first in relation to the people about whom Senator Walters is speaking that the Government has made it more and more attractive for women in that situation to opt out of the social security benefit schemes and into the work force. That has been part of the packages that the Government has announced in the last two Budgets. It has done so by working on poverty traps, and I believe in that respect the Government has had some success. But in referring exactly to the woman in the situation about which Senator Walters is speaking, if that woman wants to collect maintenance the odds are-I think pretty strong odds-that she will be registered with a State agency and the Commonwealth can pick her up anyway. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.15) —So she literally has to go and register with a State agency before the Government will pick her up? Is that what the Minister is saying? The Australian Democrats, who are accusing us of not being interested in the real poor and of making all sorts of odd amendments, do not understand the situation in any way. Surely to heavens Senator Powell will now agree with us that this group of women who are desperately trying to keep themselves and their families out of this area of social security need the Government's first priority-not its second priority; not later when time permits-and not just take into account the fact that if the Government gives handouts to those who are dependent on the taxpayers' money, the Government, through this legislation, will get all that lovely money back. If the Government gives first priority to the people who really deserve it, I will begin to believe the Government has its priorities right. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.16) —This Bill will establish a method of collecting money so that it can be paid out. I resent and reject the criticism that it is all about getting money in. I do not think we should get too carried away with the use of the word `agency' as though being registered with a State agency is in some way a big deal. In most cases that will mean a local magistrates court, which is where the great majority of people get their maintenance orders anyway. This woman will not have suddenly to decide to go and register; she is almost certainly registered already. What the Government is saying is that those State agencies will be picked up by the Commonwealth. Senator Walters —How many of these women are already registered in the States? Senator RICHARDSON —There are no figures on that, Senator Walters. No-one in the country can answer that question. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.17) —If the Government is going to pick up the State agencies, and is going to do the registering, can it not get from the States the number of people that will be involved? How in the heck has the Government made an estimate for 1987-88 of gains of $7.6m and how has it made its estimate for 1989-90 of $192m to be grabbed in if it has not got those figures and cannot get them and no one knows them? I would be very interested. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.18) —I think that people do not understand the complexity of even attempting to get these figures. Around Australia there are something like 900 magistrates courts. All of them file these orders, written on bits of paper, in all sorts of little drawers. In Queensland alone there are more than 200 of these courts. There is no central register of any of their information. They are all filed in drawers in the basements of magistrates courts spread over the length and breadth of Australia. The Government is saying that it will now set up a central register so that, finally, the chaotic administration of maintenance orders that currently exists right across the country will come to an end. I cannot wave a magic wand over those 900 courthouses and suddenly put all the information they have on a register. It takes time, and time is what the Government will take. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.19) —The Minister has not answered my question. I asked him how there can be an estimate in the Minister's second reading speech, if the Government has no idea of the figures, that the net gains for 1987-88 will be $7.6m and by 1989-90 will reach $192.8m. How come those estimates have been made if the Government has no idea of the figures that the States will hand over? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.19) —The Government does have figures available on social security recipients. It can, therefore, make estimates on the basis of the figures it has on them and on the basis of those who are likely to receive social security benefits in the future. One can make projections. That does not change the answer I just gave Senator Walters, and there would not seem to be much point in repeating what I have just said, for it does not seem to be getting through. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(9.20) —It might be appropriate at this stage to acknowledge the presence in the gallery on the Government side of Meredith Edwards who has made such a contribution to the presentation of this legislation. I am sure that all honourable senators wish her well in any contribution that she may be seeking to make in the development of a formula which is suspected of being the second part of this legislation. I think she will need all the luck in the world in getting to that point. I return to the point that Senator Walters and I are trying to get the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) to concede. I do not move among the sorts of rich mates that the Minister moves among, so perhaps he does not understand the point. We are referring to a woman who either has a child born or separates from her husband before the commencement of this Act, who is earning an income roughly the equivalent of a pension and who is not receiving a benefit. If any publicity is given to this little let-out clause that the Government has allowed itself-clause 19-she will be given the greatest incentive that ever was to give up her job and get on a pension quick smart. The Government is asking such a person to make a decision, between the time when she hears about this provision and the time when the Act commences, on whether she can continue to look after herself and bear the burden of trying to get the maintenance out of her husband or whether she would rather go on the pension in order to get the Government to get the maintenance out of her husband. Surely the Minister understands that women who are earning no more than or roughly the equivalent of the pension or who have remarried-not into the sort of wealthy family with whom the Minister may be accustomed to mixing-may regard the opportunity to get the Government to collect her maintenance payments as being all too much to pass up and may shift onto receiving benefits. The Minister still has not explained why he judges those people who are earning no more than the pension to be somehow in less need. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(9.22) —My comments are directed to you, Mr Chairman. When Senator Vanstone resumed her seat a while ago I immediately sought the call but did not receive it. I thought then that probably it would be best if my comments were to wait until the consideration of this clause had concluded. However, I am not sure how long it will take for that to happen, so perhaps I should make my comments now. When Senator Vanstone was speaking she used some rather colourful language which I do not think added to the dignity of the Senate. I ask you whether it is possible, even with Senator Vanstone's concurrence, to have that colourful language expunged from the record when the printed report of this debate is published. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I do not think I want to have a debate on this subject. I have been in correspondence with Senator Vanstone. Senator Vanstone has told me that she did not say what I understood her to say. We will discuss that matter later. I do not want a debate on particular words at this point. We will leave it to the Hansard record. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.23) —It will be necessary for me to repeat what I have already said a few times. I would have thought that the main incentive for the woman in the position to which Senator Vanstone refers would be to ensure that she is registered with a State agency, which, as I explained, is usually a local magistrates court, rather than to opt out of the work force. A woman who does that does so in the certain knowledge that by being registered with that State agency she will be picked up by the Child Support Agency in the very near future. I would have thought that that is what she would do. So far as publicity is concerned, the Department of Social Security has already taken steps to begin to notify community groups, lawyers, accountants and what have you of the details of what this legislation seeks to do. That being the case, it is hoped that the message can be spread throughout the community at the earliest possible moment. But a register of this size cannot be prepared and an undertaking of this dimension cannot be achieved without time being taken. It cannot happen tomorrow afternoon. No government could ever make it so. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(9.25) —I hope that this will be my final question. I think the Opposition accepts that all these things cannot be done at once. What we have been asking for is some indication as to why the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) judges people receiving roughly the same income as others to be in less need. What we have said is that the Minister obviously is choosing that which he thinks can save the Government money rather than accepting the principle that all of those women are in need. But we have got nowhere pressing that point. It has been put to the Minister four or five times. Each time we have done so it has been a little like hitting our heads against a brick wall. I turn to the second point. Given that the Opposition accepts that it would be difficult to do all these things at once and given that the Government obviously has decided that it can do a portion of these things immediately and that therefore the Government has some idea of its administrative capacity to shift into this area, why is it then not possible for the Government to provide some sort of schedule which would give not only the Opposition but also members of the public an insight into what is intended by the provisions in clause 19? What exclusions are intended and at what rate will the Government deal with these other areas which the Minister glibly says that the Government will get around to dealing with? Given that the Government understands what it is doing, why can it not provide us with some idea of its timing in dealing with the groups that it seeks to get to? Senator Walters —Its priorities. Senator VANSTONE —Its priorities. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.27) —We are repeatedly faced with what I consider to be a slight distortion from Senator Vanstone. She puts the proposition that the woman to whom she refers is receiving the same or virtually the same amount as the pension. When one examines the tests that one must meet to receive a pension and associated benefits, the reality is that the odds are overwhelming that the great majority of people in desperate need will be receiving pensions and benefits rather than be in the work force. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I do not deny that there may be some people who will not immediately be covered by the provisions of this Bill and who will be in some difficulty. However, the reality is that the great majority of those in real need will be covered. The aim of the Bill is to cover some 55,000 to 60,000 parents in as short a time as possible. We will need to deal with the obvious complexities of negotiating with the six States and the Territories about access to their records and we will need to ensure that those records can be compiled properly. While we are dealing with those 55,000 to 60,000 cases, we will also have to carry out negotiations with the States. I am sure that it will be possible to monitor the progress of setting up the Register and getting the scheme under way. After the Government has watched the operation of the scheme for some short period, I am sure that it will be in a position to announce a timetable. However, as I said, it is a huge undertaking. I would have thought that we would be better off ensuring that we can go at it as hard as we can, monitoring it, and undertaking to provide a timetable as soon as we have determined how fast we can implement the scheme. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.29) —I guarantee that, once the scheme is generating $192.8m by 1989-90, those women who are not able to give the Government back any money will be absolutely ignored by the Government. The Government's only interest is in those women who will be able to get off the Government payroll. The Government will wash its hands of the battler, of the woman who has had to work her heart out in the work force to support her family as a result of her ex-spouse refusing to pay maintenance. The Government is just not interested in supporting such people. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.30) —Firstly, Senator Walters grossly exaggerates the number of people in that position. Secondly, I have repeatedly said that the Government will move to make sure that they are covered. Thirdly, the Fogarty group is monitoring what we do. It is not as if we are not in a position of being watched over to make sure that our efforts are not only efficient but also are performed with some compassion and speed. When it comes to compassion and speed, anyone who has listened to this debate will have no doubt from which side of the chamber it comes-they will know that it comes from the Government. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.30) —I was interested to hear the Minister's little speech: `We will not send anyone to gaol in this day and age for not paying maintenance. We are well beyond that. If a fellow does not pay his maintenance we will not send him to gaol, as the Opposition has suggested'. Senator Richardson put forward a distortion of Senator Durack's Bill. Can the Minister tell me what happens when the very large penalties of $1,000, under clause 23 (7), clause 34 (2) and all the way through the Bill, are not paid? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.31) —I cannot tell Senator Walters what the law is in each State. People who default in respect of fines under the Act will be dealt with in accordance with the laws of those States. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.32) —I find that most interesting, because in Senator Richardson's State the penalty is gaol. We all remember Jamie Partlic, who failed to pay a parking fine and was thrown into goal and bashed up. Senator Durack —That's the Unsworth Government, is it? Senator WALTERS —That is the Unsworth Government's gaol. Jamie Partlic-just a boy-was thrown into gaol and bashed up for not paying a parking fine, and the Government accuses us of using gaol sentences under Senator Durack's Bill. That is a distortion of his Bill. There is no use the Minister wiping his brow so often. He has to face it. Under his Bill if people in New South Wales-the Minister's State, under the Unsworth Government-will not pay their penalty they are thrown into gaol. What on earth has the Minister been talking about? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.33) —In my State, as Senator Walters calls it, as she would be aware the Unsworth Government has done away with the system of gaoling fine defaulters like Jamie Partlic. Senator Panizza —Last week? Senator RICHARDSON —No, not last week. Senator Panizza, from far away places, probably does not read the Sydney newspapers. It was some time ago. What we have to understand is that whatever the Commonwealth does and whatever Bill it might be the only form of reasonable deterrent in these situations is fines. That is why they are in this Bill and why they are in so many other Bills when we talk of breaches, whatever they may be. There is no alternative but to deal with the situation in the way I have just mentioned. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.34) —In the recent exchanges what has emerged quite clearly is the importance to many women, in particular those women who are not on pensions or benefits, of the functioning of State agencies and of the relationship between the State agencies and the newly emerging Federal agency. Could the Minister provide the Senate with an up to date appraisal, from his point of view, of how the negotiations are proceeding in areas where he perceives there are, perhaps, significant problems so that we may know in which areas those women are likely to strike most difficulty? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.35) —Whilst it is true that the Commonwealth can proceed to negotiate with the States only after it has seen the Bill pass through the Parliament, informal negotiations are already taking place with the States. I would not have thought, though, that there was much point in giving Senator Powell a progress report of informal negotiations except to say that most States appear to be anxious to co-operate but, as usual, not all. I will let Senator Powell guess about which State might not be as willing to co-operate as some of the others. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.35) —Minister Walsh's second reading speech states: The Government rejects the suggestion that automatic withholding be imposed only when default in payment occurs . . . Stigma attaches to automatic withholding if it is imposed upon default and this would detract from the success of the scheme. If the Government believes that, why does it allow an opting out clause? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.36) —If that is what people wish, the Government does not intend to stand in their road. Obviously they can opt back in if arrangements are upset at some later date. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.36) —The Minister has misunderstood me. I am saying that if the Government believes that stigma is attached to automatic withholding if it is not automatic, as stated in Minister Walsh's second reading speech, why does the Government allow an opting out clause? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.37) —I have just given the reason. I am not sure how many times I should repeat answers. I have done so a lot tonight. Senator Vanstone —Try a better answer. Senator RICHARDSON —As I said to Senator Vanstone earlier `Try better questions'. When it comes to the stigma question, one has to look at what happens with the employers, whose responsibility it is to deduct the payments. If one has a payment withheld only if one defaults the stigma is automatic. The employer knows straight away that any person from whom he has to deduct payments is in some way at fault. With the system the Government has announced there is no stigma whatsoever on anyone. All that is know by the employer is that there is a maintenance order. I would have thought that was a far better system for all concerned. I cannot understand what the argument is about. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.38) —The Minister need not wipe his brow. Why would an employer not say to his employee, `Why don't you opt out?'. If he is not able to opt out, a stigma is attached, according to the Government's opting out clause. The Government allows an opting out clause. By allowing an opting out clause an employer could say to his employee, `Why don't you get your ex-spouse to allow you to opt out? Doesn't she trust you?'. There is confusion about this matter. The Government does not really believe the stigma bit or it would not allow an opting out clause. As soon as the Government allows opting out the employer is going to say, `Joe Blow, why don't you get yourself in order?. If you paid your maintenance regularly your little woman would allow you to opt out. You obviously do not pay it regularly and therefore she won't allow you to opt out'. The Minister is really confusing the whole issue. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.40) —Over an hour ago in my summing up to the second reading debate I thought I covered the point that Senator Walters had attempted to suggest that the non-custodial parent should have the right to opt out. The Government rejected that. We believe that if anyone is to opt out it ought to be the custodial parent-that is, the parent with the responsibility of bringing up the children and of putting the food in their mouths. We said that if the custodial parent chooses to opt out that parent can write to the Registrar and simply say, `I do not wish you to take any action to enforce collection'. If that is what is said in no way would we be seen to be hindering or hampering that operation. But we would not permit the non-custodial parent to have the right of opting out. In the end, we are about providing not just the money, the cash in the hand; the real provision is for security to try to take some of the worry away from custodial parents. That is what we are about and that is what this Bill achieves. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(9.42) —I was grateful for the Minister's answer to what I said I thought would be my last question. It was about people who would be left out. He indicated in his answer that he thought it was now impossible to calculate the number of such people but that eventually it would be possible. I ask the Minister: Given that he has acknowledged there is this group of people who are left out-we might disagree as to why, but given he does know how many he can handle now-surely he can now produce some sort of schedule as to when he will be able to take on other liabilities? He must know how many now will be covered by this Bill. Is it not a simple process of extrapolation on an annual basis as to picking up those who are now left out? In any event, if the Minister says no to that, will he at least give an undertaking that within six months or 12 months, when he has had some experience of this Bill, he will produce such a schedule to give the people who are currently excluded from this Bill-or will be by his regulations-an opportunity of coming under it? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.43) —Again I have to repeat myself about the complexity of the Bill. Earlier I did give a figure of, I think, 55,000 to 60,000 cases that we estimated would be picked up now. In terms of seeing how we can implement the scheme, we have to judge not only the number of cases. We not only have to go through negotiation with the States, we also have to find out how many parents will choose to use the Child Support Agency as a collection agency. At the moment that can only be speculation. The Government would like to be able to judge that as time goes by. We do not ask the honourable senator to wait on the never-never but if we are given a few months to see how it goes we will be able to announce some sort of program for incorporating the rest. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.44) —Can the Minister envisage the situation in which a father regularly visits his children and takes a delight in making sure the children understand that his care and concern for them also entails his handing over money to their mother so that they can be looked after in the way in which he would like them to be? In that situation I believe there can be a very healthy relationship between the children and the father. Why should not that father in those circumstances, where he has been paying maintenance for a considerable time regularly on time without defaulting every time he visits his kids, be able to opt out? Under this Bill the only way he can do so is to persuade his ex-wife, the custodial parent, herself to put in for an exemption. He may never have defaulted. The Government is taking away from him the opportunity of having a very healthy relationship with his children by taking from him the right of saying to them, `I hope everything is all right and I am able to support you'. I think it is terribly important for him to be able to show his children that he is indeed financially supporting them. Under the Bill it will be his word against his ex-wife's because he cannot prove to his children he is handing over money if his ex-spouse is saying to the children, `The Government has to take it out of his wages, otherwise he would not be paying it'. That is the situation the Government is setting up. As we are all well aware, divorces can involve so much bitterness. The Bill is enabling the mother to say to the children, `He won't pay. The Government is making him pay. It actually garnishees his wages. It takes the money out of his wages every week. The Government makes him pay through the Register and I do not get the money from him; I get it from the Registrar when it is taken from him'. Why is the Government creating that problem for the children after the divorce where otherwise the father could allow his children to see that his love and devotion for them includes his payment for their support? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.48) —I have to repeat some things I said earlier in the debate. I seem to say that each time I stand up. I would not have thought it normal in these situations for the children to be marched into the front room to witness the handing over of the money from dad to mum. I would have thought that would be a pretty rare old case. I doubt very much that that is the norm. Nonetheless, let us assume-- Senator Walters —They are not dumb. Senator RICHARDSON —No, that is right; they are not nearly as dumb as Senator Walters is taking them for. I have to say again that it is the custodial parent who can opt not to use the Child Support Agency as a collection agency. If the maintenance is being paid over regularly in the form of cash, it is pretty easy to walk out of the room and spend it on necessities. In that circumstance I would think very few women would be anxious to do other than inform the Registrar that they did not wish the Registrar to collect the money. That immediately obviates any problem with dad convincing the children that he really cares. However, to take that a bit further, I would have thought that, even in a situation where bitterness persists and where the custodial parent insists on the collection being taken up, it will not be very difficult if, as the honourable senator says, `they are not that dumb' for the father to explain that the Government is taking the money not because he would not pay it but because the new system requires all fathers to do it in that way, except where the custodial parent opts out. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(9.50) —I wish to refer to some remarks made earlier in the debate which were not debated quite properly. For the benefit of honourable senators who were here and perhaps for those who were not, the suggestion was made that I had made some remarks that might be considered unparliamentary. In fact, if what was put to me was what I had said, I would agree that it was unparliamentary and I would have been happy to withdraw it. I indicated to the Chairman at the time by several nods that I had not in my view said that. For the benefit of honourable senators present, I inform them that I have just received a copy of the `pink', and the sentence reads: She is battling to look after her kids and she is married to some- this is where the consternation comes in- creep who ticks off. For the benefit of honourable senators here, and anybody else who might want to read Hansard, I will not put before the chamber what it was suggested I did say. Senator Durack —Who suggested that, Senator? Senator VANSTONE —I understand someone on the other side of the chamber said that. Senator Colston raised the point. Nonetheless, I am very pleased to see that the Hansard record confirms my recollection of the events. I certainly did not recall the exact words I said, but I was quite clear in my mind that I had not said what it was put to me I had said. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(9.52) —I accept the remarks that Senator Vanstone has made. I would hope that Senator Vanstone realises that I made the remarks in what I considered was a proper way. I certainly did not interrupt Senator Vanstone's speech. I deliberately waited until the end so that I could then make my remarks, but I did not get the call at that stage and had to wait until some time later. I made the remark only out of good faith for the sake of the Senate, not to take any objection to Senator Vanstone herself. I must have mis- heard. Senator Durack made a comment about who made the suggestion. I think I was not the only person in the chamber who misheard. Having said that, I hope that Senator Vanstone will realise that I did it out of the dignity of the Senate and not because of the remark itself. I do accept the remarks that Senator Vanstone has now made. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.53) —Having heard what Senator Vanstone just said, I was not aware of the controversy that had arisen, but I certainly accept that she said `creep who ticks off', which I do not find offensive. It is probably an accurate statement in the circumstances to which she was referring. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(9.54) —I ask the Minister to say just how much consultation the Government had with employer groups before it introduced this system whereby the employer is used as a collection agency and, I might add, a free collection agency. As I mentioned in an earlier speech, there are various penalties on the employer under the Bill-$5,000 for this, $1,000 for that and $2,000 for something else. Even though the Minister said there would be no gaoling for this offence, if I understand him correctly, for the employer, I do not think there is much provision for the gaoling of the true dodgers of the system, the ones who do not pay their maintenance. I ask: How much consultation did the Government have with employer groups before it put in a scheme such as this? It is another load onto the employer. I do not know how much experience the Minister has had as an employer, but I have certainly had plenty. Senator Durack —He has tried a few famous people. Senator PANIZZA —I am talking about direct experience. I have had experience, as an employer, of a policeman or bailiff presenting me with a garnishee order requiring money to be taken out of an employee's wages and the next day all the marital problems were given as reasons why that person should not pay, such as, `My wife often lives with someone else'. I have had to put up with this and the next week I have sometimes had to find a new operator because the law has caught up with that one. I ask the Minister to put himself in an employer's shoes and tell me how he relates to that and, more importantly, how much consultation the Government had with employers groups before it lumbered them with another hefty piece of legislation under which they have to do the collections or answer to the Government for their failure to do so. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.56) —The consultation has been over a long period and it has been with every major employer group, not just nationally but also in the States. It has even extended to some of the major employers themselves, some of the big employers of labour. I am not sure what else both the Commissioner of Taxation and the Department of Social Security could have done because, as I understand it, both have had these consultations, not simply one of them. As I said in summing up the debate some time back, the provisions for employers were made as light as possible in light of those consultations. As far as the penalties are concerned, they are less than what employers can expect with other problems that they may have with tax collections-considerably less in fact. I would not have thought that the penalties were all that high. I certainly will not say that the employer groups have endorsed the Government's actions. Obviously any extra impost is something they would prefer not to have. I think generally speaking their view would be that the impost they are to have has been applied in as sensitive a manner as possible. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Richardson) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 18 February. Clause 9. (Quorum formed) The CHAIRMAN —When the Committee last dealt with the Bill, it was considering clause 9, as amended. The question is that clause 9, as amended, be agreed to. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.00) —When the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill was last being considered, Senator Durack asked me for a little more detail about the notion of Judicial Registrar. I point out that the Judicial Registrar is required to have the same qualifications as a judge. He or she will be delegated judicial powers in respect of contested matters and in respect of undefended divorce applications. A meeting was held with then Chief Judge Elizabeth Evatt, some other judges and officials in April last year. Apparently, it was indicated that the judges would be prepared to consider delegation in respect of unlimited property jurisdiction where the parties agree to a matter being dealt with by a judicial registrar; contested property jurisdiction to $100,000 without consent of the parties; approval of section 87 deeds; ex parte applications; interlocutory proceedings; and children's matters. Obviously no decision has been made in that regard, but that was the scope that was indicated. I hope that that information will assist Senator Durack. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.01) —It certainly give us a little more knowledge about the Bill than Senator Tate gave us the other night, but he really has not answered the point that I was pressing when consideration of the Bill was adjourned-that is, having decided to go down this track of having judicial registrars whose qualifications as he said, would be similar to those required for appointment as a judge, the Family Court judges would be prepared to delegate some contentious work of a perhaps less serious or important kind to those judicial registrars. I can understand that concept, but I do not understand why the Government, having decided to create the office of Judicial Registrar, has provided in clause 12 of the Bill for the fullest delegation to the ordinary registrars. The thing that I find so odd about this scheme is that the Government has totally extended the power of delegation to registrars, thus removing the one restriction that existed on the power of delegation to registrars. Therefore, why is it necessary to go through all this palaver and create an Office of Judicial Registrar? It almost seems that the Government is providing a way to create a higher salary for this office. I know that the Government will leave this point to the Remuneration Tribunal; of course we do not object to that. The salary of the Judicial Registrar will be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. But when the Remuneration Tribunal looks at what can be done by a judicial registrar as against what can be done by a registrar, how will it determine the difference in status? In understand that the original proposals were that there ought to be created in the Family Court the office of Master of the Court which, of course, is a well-known concept in the court system. The position of master in the supreme courts of the States has been a major feature of the administration of justice for as long as we have had the British common law system of justice in Australia. The notion of a master is well known in law. It is a more intelligible notion, but the Government has not chosen to create an office of master. Perhaps the Minister for Justice can tell us why that is so. It proposes to create this Office of Judicial Registrar, and the judicial registrars seem to be virtually indistinguishable from the registrars, who have been a very important feature of the Family Court since it was created. They have carried out a lot of important work, particularly in the conference area. Their powers to deal with delegated judicial work have been greatly increased as a result of amendments in 1985. The one restriction imposed upon that power of delegation in the 1985 amendments to the Family Law Act is now removed by clause 12 of this Bill. That is the point about which I was seeking some explanation from the Minister. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.06) —In trying to point out the status of those who will be appointed as judicial registrars-they will have to have the same qualifications as a judge-and having pointed out the sorts of delegated judicial powers that they might be able to exercise, I was trying to distinguish them from registrars who, as we know, exercise many ordinary administrative functions. It is true that they exercise certain powers that are delegated by judges. There is limited jurisdiction with respect to urgent maintenance, interim maintenance pending final resolution by a court, and so on. As we know, most registrars spend a lot of time administering the case management flow through the registry to ensure that orderly disposal of cases throughout the court. Indeed, whilst it is true that the proposed amendment to section 37a (2) permits judges to delegate powers to registrars in respect of undefended divorce applications, the judges have not indicated any disposition to undertake such a delegation. I think that that distinction between the actual effective practical work of registrars and judicial registrars will remain. In answer to Senator Durack's question about the concept of masters being a more understood concept, it is true that it is a well recognised office within our court systems. Indeed, the Judicial Registrar is really a master, or mistress, under another name. I say that because, to be quite frank, as I understand it, the term `judicial registrar' has been chosen rather than `master' simply to avoid some of the-as it is put-sexist overtones of the language characterising that office. Whilst the position of master has a strong and noble historical lineage, I think one can appreciate that when given this new opportunity, and given the possibility that women will hold that office of judicial registrars, as they hold the office of judges of the Family Court, it was thought an appropriate time to use the title `judicial registrar' rather than `master'. Senator Durack was quite right to point to the similarity of the sorts of functions that may be undertaken by judicial registrars to those which are associated with masters in, say, the supreme courts. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.09) —That is an interesting revelation of the power of the sisterhood in the Caucus of the Australian Labor Party. I wonder whether women are likely to refuse being appointed as masters of supreme courts. No doubt, as time goes by, they will hold these positions in the State supreme court systems. It is a pathetic example of the level of thinking of this Government. If we are to think of judicial registrars as being similar to masters of supreme courts, that may help to clarify the position. It still does not explain to me why such very wide powers of delegation have been given to registrars. I might pursue that matter when we come to clause 12. In relation to the status of the new judicial registrars, the Minister has earlier given us some indication of the type of work they will do and its important character and has pointed out that, under proposed new section 26h, the person will have the same qualifications as required to be appointed a judge of the court. Why has it been decided in two other subclauses that, first, the judicial registrar may be appointed on a full time or part time basis, which is hardly consistent with judicial office-the concept of part time judges is not known to me-and that, secondly, and even more importantly, a judicial registrar is to be appointed for a term not exceeding seven years? That is certainly inconsistent with the notion of judicial office. Can the Minister explain why these limitations are imposed on a person who is supposed to be, we now learn, a mini-judge, if not a Master? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.12) —I suppose the short answer is that he is not a mini-judge; he is a master exercising certain delegated powers. That explains why the seven-year term is thought to be appropriate. As far as the question of full time or part time is concerned, I am advised that the part time position will allow for those no doubt uncommon instances where a retired judge may wish to make himself available for this type of work, does not want to commit himself or herself to a full time role, but has the skills, experience and ability to well fulfil the requirements of the office of judicial registrar. It may be that in such a situation one could take advantage of that willingness to be committed on a part time basis. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.13) —I can understand the Minister's answer in relation to why part time work is available, even though it may seem inconsistent with the higher status that is sought to be accorded to these people. But the term of seven years can hardly be brushed off by the Minister's saying that it is quite appropriate for a person who is not a judge but is only equivalent to a master of a Supreme Court. I would have thought that the general concept nowadays for all judges, whether they be of Supreme Court, district courts or magistrate courts, is that they be given security of tenure, do not have appointment for a term of years and, subject to behaviour and capacity, have a permanency. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.14) —It is not thought that the office is so akin to the full status of a judge as to require that absolute security of tenure until the attaining of a certain age-65, as it probably would be in this jurisdiction, 70 or 75, whatever it might be. Senator Durack —The age of 65 is all right because judges retire at 65. Senator TATE —That is right, they do now. All I can say is that the Government has made a decision that the term should not exceed seven years. If one were appointing a judge, one would not have such a limitation. In so far as the registrar is not absolutely holding that office, it is thought that this limitation is acceptable. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.15) —With all respect, all the Minister has done is state the obvious, namely, that the Government has decided that appointment should be only for a term of not more than seven years. That is not consistent with the explanation the Minister is giving generally of this new office of high quasi-judicial status. I presume that the Minister regards this position as being senior to a magistrate's position. Perhaps the Government does not. It is certainly not the way in which I understood this proposal had been set up. I understood that it was a proposal to create, in the Family Court system, positions that were analogous to masters of Supreme Courts. The Government has now decided that it cannot call them that because of pressure from its feminists on the back bench. It is understandable, I suppose, that the Government gives in to such pressures. Why should this office not be accorded the type of tenure which would normally be sought to get people to take on this job? Maybe that will not be a problem with retired judges, but I would be surprised to learn that the Government is seeking only retired judges or retired lawyers. Is it suggested that this is going to be an easy job for a few years for a lawyer who is retiring from active practice at the age of 60? Is that really the Government's notion? I find the answers quite unsatisfactory and quite inadequate on just what is the Government's thinking on this new office which the Government, and certainly the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in his second reading speech, have indicated is very important. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.17) —I am advised that in proposed new subsection 26i (1) (b), subparagraphs (i) and (ii) are disjunctive. In other words, a judicial registrar can be appointed: . . . for such term (not exceeding 7 years) as is specified in the instrument of appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment; or (ii) if the instrument of appointment so provides, until attaining 65 years of age, but is eligible for re-appointment on a part time basis. I am advised that the two possibilities are there, the second being the one that would normally be made available for a full time appointment of a judicial registrar and the first one being the arrangement that might be made in relation to a part time registrar. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.18) —The legislation does not say that. Am I to take it that that is Government policy? It is not translated in the legislation, but I take it that the policy is that hale and hearty people in the prime of life who are going to be appointed as judicial registrars will be appointed until they are the age of 65? A semi-retired lawyer or judge will be appointed only for the term. Is that what the Minister is saying? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.19) —I do not know that I can make such an absolute distinction between the two grades. Perhaps we should also read proposed new subsection 26i (2): The Governor-General shall not appoint a person as a Judicial Registrar on a full time basis for a term that extends beyond the day on which the person will attain 65 years of age. Perhaps Senator Durack's teasing out of this section has enabled me to get a better understanding of it. Senator Durack —It does not enable me to get one. Senator TATE —But we are getting there. It could be important, when Senator Durack retires, whether he is appointed under new sub- section 26i (1) (b) (i) or (ii). Subsection 26i (2) makes it clear that a judicial registrar on a full time basis cannot be appointed beyond a time at which he attains 65 years of age. He would then be able to go back, though, to clause 26i (1) (b) (i) and appoint such a person for a term perhaps until he is age 70. That is the way those proposed sections would be utilised. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.20) —The result of that is that the constitutional requirement that judges of the Family Court have to retire at 65 years of age will not be observed in relation to the minor office of judicial registrar. Presumably we can have judicial registrars appointed at 80 years of age even for a term of up to seven years. Is that the case? It seems to be an extraordinary conflict between not only the statutory policy in relation to the age at which judges retire, but also the constitutional requirement that Family Court judges have to retire at 65 years of age. Having retired at 65 years of age they, or some other retired judge, can be appointed as a judicial registrar for a period of years. Is that the position? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.21) —Yes, as I understand it, such a person could be appointed on a part time basis though he is over 65 years of age. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 10 to 14-by leave-taken together. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.21) —I refer to clause 12 which deals with the power of delegation to registrars. I refer to what I have already said about this question of registrars. I ask the Minister to explain to the Committee why we now have the situation where ordinary registrars can have delegated to them all the powers that can be delegated to judicial registrars even though the judicial registrar is supposed to have a higher status. After what we have just been told about judicial registrars I do not know how the Government thinks that they can be seen to have a higher status. Let us assume that the Government achieves the unlikely, if not the impossible, status it wants to establish for judicial registrars. Nevertheless, in the same Bill the Government is removing any limits that exist now on the powers of delegation to registrars. I would like the Minister to explain what his thinking is in relation to that. I can understand his taking away the limits on the delegation to registrars if he was not creating the office of judicial registrar, but having gone to all this trouble-and we have been over that enough-he now removes all the limits. And it is not just in regard to undefended divorces. As I see it, the power limits delegation to a registrar to make a decree of dissolution of marriage, annulment, et cetera. Clause 12 simply removes that subsection with that limitation. It seems that the power of delegation to registrars is complete if the judges wish to so exercise it. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.22) —I think that is correct. If the Act is amended by omitting the present provision that would be the effect but, as I understand it, the judges have indicated that if this important power were to be delegated to registrars it would be in respect of undefended dissolution applications. I agree that that would be their decision, narrowing it down. But there has certainly been no clear indication from the judges as yet as to which of the functions they will delegate, or in what terms, following the omission of this particular subsection. I am advised that it is not expected that this will be a commonly delegated or, if delegated, used power, but it may be useful in some situations where a registrar is on circuit on a more regular basis and therefore more available to deal with the matter than judges who are less frequently on a circuit in a particular geographical area. It may be useful on some occasions to delegate the power to the registrar in those limited situations, but this is a matter for the judges. Senator Haines —What happens if the parties don't want it delegated? Are you saying that the judge makes the decision? Senator TATE —The judges will make rules of court which will clarify and make clear the extent to which, the conditions under which, and those circumstances in which the delegated power should be exercised. Senator Haines —What if the people concerned actually want a judge to hear it in a contested action? Is there any provision for them to say, `I don't want it to go to the registrar'? Senator TATE —No, I do not think there is. If the rules of court provide that the judges may make a delegation of this power to the registrar, then that is judged by them to be a proper and sufficient repository of that power and they would have confidence that the matter would be dealt with in a proper way. But I am saying that what indications there are at present are that the judges would certainly not be prepared to delegate any power outside the area of undefended dissolution applications. But in the absence of the rules of court that they might wish to make, I am not in a position to give an absolute guarantee on that. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.27) —I am sorry to have to return to the status of judicial registrar. I thought I understood the Minister to say, when he answered earlier, that judicial registrars would have delegated to them power to grant undefended divorces. Did the Minister say that? Senator Tate —Yes. Senator DURACK —But not defended divorces? Is that the position? Senator Tate —That is right. Senator DURACK —That is judicial registrars? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.27) —Yes, that is right. Naturally we would expect the same with registrars but all I am saying is that these are the discussions that have been held so far with the judges of the Family Court and officers, but it would be quite wrong for me to stand here and substitute myself for the judges making those rules of court. I am indicating that it is intended, in so far as one can fathom it from the judges, that they will be prepared to give this delegated power to judicial registrars in respect of undefended divorce applications. If they were minded at all to give any power to registrars in that field it obviously would not be in any greater field than they are prepared to give to judicial registrars. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.28) —Is it the Government's policy though in providing for these powers of delegation that not only will a judicial registrar be able to grant an undefended divorce but that registrars will be able to grant an undefended divorce? We come back to this total confusion again between the office of judicial registrar and ordinary registrar. The Minister should have left the legislation as it is with the limit in the 1985 Act of allowing delegation to registrars in pretty well every power of the court except to grant a dissolution. The legislation does not say whether it is defended or undefended; registrars cannot grant a dissolution. Now the Minister is taking that away and suggesting that there may be a delegation to registrars to grant divorces. Is it the Government's policy that it is all right to allow delegation to a registrar to grant an undefended divorce? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.29) —Yes. The Government's policy reflected in the Bill is to enable the judges, if they so decide, to permit to a registrar that particular power to grant an undefended divorce application. Clauses agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate to now adjourn. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.30) —On 7 October last year I raised in the adjournment debate the problems being faced by Mr Robert Wenham, an Australian citizen who had been detained in Saudi Arabia for seven years by a Saudi Arabian prince, Ahmed Al Sudairi, after a failed business deal in which they were both involved. It is a pleasure to be able to report to the Senate that Mr Wenham was finally allowed to leave Saudi Arabia at the end of last year and returned home to Australia to a joyous and relieved Christmas reception from his family. His release was in large measure due to the relentless pursuit by so many members of his family of every avenue available to them to secure his release. I am sure we would all wish to have such dedicated and loving support in similar circumstances. The Australian media is also to be praised, for by giving publicity to Mr Wenham's plight and the family's fight to have him released they, too, played an important part in helping him to leave Saudi Arabia. I hope I may also have played a part by raising the matter in the Senate. If the reaction of the Saudi Government to my raising it here is anything to go by, it must have added to the pressure on that Government to find an amicable solution to the impasse between Mr Wenham and his Saudi captors. In addition praise must go to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the role it played in trying to find a resolution to the impasse. The role played by that Department is the main reason I have risen to comment further on the matter tonight. In speaking to the matter on 7 October I made it clear that the material I put then before the Senate was provided to me by the Wenham family and represented their side of what was then a very worrying story. Since that time a member of my staff has been allowed to examine departmental files in response to a freedom of information request. After examining these files he has formed the view which I expressed a moment ago, that is, that the Department had been assiduous in assisting Mr Wenham in his attempts to leave Saudi Arabia. My officer found that departmental officers had spent a considerable amount of time trying to clarify the issues in dispute between Mr Wenham and his captor. Further my officer felt that the Department had done its best to advise Mr Wenham on how to proceed in order to enable him to leave Saudi Arabia-of course, an outcome which we finally did achieve. Therefore, to the extent that my comments, as reported on page 841 of the Hansard of 7 October 1987, might have seemed critical of the efforts of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade I would now wish to revise them and replace them with the foregoing comment I have just put before the Senate. I should also add that it was a particularly difficult situation, and I can understand fully why the Wenham family felt that the Department was not doing enough. All they wanted was their father and family member home. However, it is important that we all understand that by undertaking a private business venture in a foreign country an Australian citizen impliedly consents to be bound by the law and custom of that country. When a citizen voluntarily places himself or herself in this situation he or she cannot expect the same protection that he or she would have had in Australia. The Government must recognise the local private dispute settling procedures. So the Australian Government's role tends to be advisory, and while it can make approaches to the other Government, as was done in this case, it is not in a position to make demands of that Government. My staff member considers that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade adequately undertook this role. I have written to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade setting out my views on this matter, and I seek to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE 6 January, 1988 Dear Mr Cotsell I refer to your letter of 24 November, 1987 and the review of your files on Mr Wenham's detention in Saudi Arabia by a member of my staff, Mr Crawford, on 15 December, 1987. Mr Crawford has reported to me that his review of your files demonstrated to his satisfaction that your Department had been assiduous in assisting Mr Wenham in his attempts to leave Saudi Arabia. He considers that your Department has used all reasonable means available to it in its efforts to resolve this difficult situation. When the Senate resumes sitting in February, I intend to draw this matter to its attention, so as to correct some of the information I provided to the Senate on behalf of the Wenham family on 7 October, 1987. I will also draw Mr Crawford's findings to the attention of the Wenham family. The only concern Mr Crawford raised with me was that the arbitration procedure may be biased against Mr Wenham in a way that it would not be if Australian law applied to it. He has told me that cables from the Embassy to the Department indicate both that an arbitration decision would be difficult to enforce against royal interests and that the plaintiff's lawyer appeared to have too cosy a relationship with Saudi Departmental officials. These factors make it easy to understand Mr Wenham's reluctance to enter into arbitration. However, I realise that these are Mr Wenham's problems, as he impliedly consented to be bound by Saudi law and custom when he undertook a business venture in Saudi Arabia as a private citizen. As Mr Wenham has now returned to Australia after having been allowed to leave Saudi Arabia, I do not wish to take my Freedom of Information request any further. Therefore, I withdraw my request as of this date and I do not require you to provide me with any documents. Would you let me know if there are any outstanding fees in respect of this matter. Yours sincerely Peter Baume Senator for New South Wales Mr G. Cotsell Assistant Secretary Consular and Passports Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Administrative Building PARKES ACT 2600 cc Mrs Sue Linquist Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(10.34) —I wish to address the Senate on the subject of civil disobedience seeing that I have been twice arrested. I want to explain my rationale for deciding on such a course of action. I begin by quoting from the Gospel of St John, chapter 8, verse 32: You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. It is the never ending and often frustrating search for truth which is a constant motivation in my work for peace. An informed public in a democracy will generally make sensible decisions for the general well-being. Unfortunately, it is in the interest of the few to control the masses by keeping them uninformed and therefore unable to contribute as intelligently as they would like to the decision making processes. It is the age old mushroom treatment-keep them in the dark. Unfortunately, truth is constantly sacrificed on the low altars of politics, power and profit. It seems to be considered dangerous in Australia to allow the public free access to information. The increasing monopolisation of the media in this country is a very real threat to alternative viewpoints getting an airing. Look at the media giants headed by business people with vested interests to protect, who wield power in the less-and-less investigative journalistic circles. It is a case of `No questions, please. Don't rock the boat. Tread carefully, journos, or you're out of a job'. It is not that this lack of information or misinformation is new on the Australian political scene but media monopolisation highlights it to a painful degree-painful that is to people who like to know what is going on, to people who-perish the thought-cherish the notion that ordinary people have a right to information which affects their lives and their children's collective future. The mushroom treatment has been the norm ever since convict days when decisions were made by so-called superior beings about not only the majority of white settlers in chains, but also about the original inhabitants of this land. There was no pretence at consultation then. Successive governments have kept generations of Australians in the dark on a whole range of topics. Of special concern to me are the areas of foreign affairs and defence. Secrecy, paranoia and fawning colonialism in these crucial areas of decision-making have affected the way we perceive ourselves, how we relate to other nations, how we have been prepared to die in other nations' wars and to assist other nations in their quest for power and nuclear supremacy. Consider the secret decision Menzies made to `lend Australia to the British Government' for its nuclear weapons testing program. Consider, too, the establishment of American base after base to suit the United States Government's needs for listening posts and communication facilities in this region of the world-all arrangements secret, of course. It turns out that a worried Menzies Government invited the United States to put facilities here to shore up its anxieties at the loose wording of the 1951 ANZUS Treaty. The bases were meant to act as insurance that the United States would intervene to protect its own interests because there was no guarantee in the ANZUS Treaty that the parties would do more than consult. As Des Ball points out: American installations in Australia have been the subjects, both of continued lack of candour on the part of the United States and of extraordinary secrecy, evasion and deception on the part of the Australian Government. As a peace activist and senator I have become acutely aware of this secrecy, evasion and deception on the part of our Government doing another government's bidding in contravention of international law. Having exhausted, but not abandoned, the usual methods of information extraction and lobbying, I found myself increasingly led to civil disobedience as a vehicle for exposing the truth. Of course the letters, questions, delegations and huge public demonstrations of Australians challenging our foreign affairs and defence policies must continue. But on their own, they have been singularly unsuccessful in either exposing the whole truth or in changing government policy. Of course a thorough expose of the role of the United States bases in Australia would very likely lead to public demands for their closure. And a significant number of Australians are already demanding that-but not the 70 per cent, give or take a few, which the Government could hardly ignore. The question is: How can more people become informed to the point of outrage-outrage at successive Australian governments' secrecy and their co-operation with foreign governments in direct contravention of Australian interest; outraged enough to demand public inquiries into outside interference in Australia's domestic affairs; outraged enough to act in defiance of a government committing Australia to action which a majority of its citizens consider illegal or immoral, or both? For me, the issue is not only a public one because I am an elected representative of the people of Western Australia, but it is also a very personal one because, as a Quaker, truth is of fundamental importance. Quakers are encouraged to `let their lives speak'-in other words, to act as believed, to ensure a correspondence between our outward, visible lives giving expression to our inward, spiritual lives. This notion of integrity calls for faithfulness to conscience illuminated by the light within. It is not grounded in dogma, creeds, abstract philosophical ideas on theological affirmations. It is not to be found in religious textbooks. It is grounded in the living faith and experience of the present moment. It is the basis for Quaker testimonies-living witnesses to the inward leading of the spirit in our lives. Once it lays hold of us, truth will not let us go until we have acted upon it. It is like that for me. Acting upon the truth, or that part of it which I know, and the tantalising part of it which I seek, compels me to act in every possible non-violent way to expose more of the truth, for the sake of humanity. If that means putting myself at risk by committing civil disobedience, so be it. I cannot be content only to speak, write and lobby in the search for peace; I must act with my whole being, with every fibre of my body. As Martin Luther observed at his trial after he had hammered his 95 theses to the door in Wittenberg over 400 years ago: Here stand I, I can do no other. The call to civil disobedience as a tool towards the uncovering of truth is not merely intuitive; it is certainly spiritual in nature. The example of others has been a strong influencing factor, backed up by enlightenment from traditional and radical religious sources. These happen to be mostly Christian in origin, because that is my background, but I am sure the inspiration could have come from other religious faiths. The Quaker Peace Testimony, first declared in 1660 after the restoration of the monarchy in England, is a useful starting point. The refusal to take up arms for any purpose whatsoever has landed Quakers in jail ever since. Their witness for non-violence has been active rather than passive, and very expensive at times in terms of personal costs. For 300 years Quakers have been absolutely convinced of the immorality of engaging in killing and conversely by the power of non-violence. The potentialities of non-violence are inexhaustible. The world's people are slowly realising that we must move in that direction. As Martin Luther King said: We have a choice and the choice is clear. It is no longer between violence and non-violence, but between non-violence and non-existence. Of course this challenges us as individuals, groups and nations. At every level of society we need to look to solving our problems non-violently. The violence we confront in our lives may be physical, verbal or structural and we must learn ways of overcoming it. The most powerful force for good in the world is the transforming power of love. Without it, without the spirit of reconciliation, without looking for the good in every person, we shall neither find, nor deserve, peace. Violence must be faced as a crucial issue and firmly renounced. The immediate impact of commitment to non-violence is to liberate individuals to act morally and responsibly on the daily problems of the world community. This means much more than an individual adding to the useful witness of a permanent minority. Rather, it is the essential moral and political act of our time, the initial impetus for the pioneering effort that humanity must make to escape disaster. There have been many shining examples of this witness beginning in small ways but eventually having enormous impact, the most recent outstanding ones being Gandhi's campaign for independence in India and Martin Luther King's civil rights campaign in the United States of America. The political effectiveness of these successful, although long, difficult, and sometimes bloody campaigns was always underscored by goodwill; that is, goodwill on behalf of the social change agents, but not always of their opponents, who tried very hard to resist such changes. Goodwill and love are the spiritual tools of non-violence, just as civil disobedience is its physical tool. No government can maintain power without the approval and co-operation of the majority of the population, even where a regime is prepared to use brutal force. If the majority of the people withdraw their co-operation in the daily running of a country's affairs, systems will grind to a halt. Change must occur. Thus Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle argues: As a general rule the laws of the State must be obeyed. However, we may peacefully disobey certain laws under serious conditions . . . In certain cases, where issues of great moral import are at stake, disobedience to a law in a peaceful manner and accompanied by certain safeguards that help preserve respect of the institution of the law is not only allowed but may be an obligation of conscience . . . I believe that the present issue is as serious as any that the world has faced. The very existence of humanity is at stake. Of course Archbishop Hunthausen was referring there to the insanity of the build-up of nuclear weapons. What we are faced with today is a world armed to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction-nuclear, chemical and biological. There can be no moral justification whatsoever for their use, or even their possession. Weapons of mass destruction are evil, and the threat to use them is evil. Why are the world's people allowing themselves to be pawns in the so-called superpowers supremacy battle? The nuclear superpowers are the ultimate terrorists, holding the world's people to ransom. Is it because we have lost faith in the sanctity of human life, in the power of good to overcome evil, in the interconnections which exist between all people as spiritual creatures? I suspect that we have replaced faith in those positive forces with dependency on weapons. We would indeed inhabit a spiritual desert if we allowed weapons instead of faith, or violence instead of non-violence, to provide our security. There can be no security in the immorality in the arms race. It is suicidal. At the same time that the world is committing billions of dollars a day to the weapons industry, millions of people are undernourished, millions do not have fresh water or adequate housing, millions have no access to medicine or education and 40,000 children die each day. As former President Eisenhower of the United States said: Every weapon that is tested, every missile that is deployed is a theft from the poor and hungry of this world. The links between disarmament and development are indisputable. To continue funding weapons systems is morally indefensible. The biblical injunction to love one's neighbour has become the global imperative. Those who profess to be followers of any of the world's great religious teachers ought to ask whether their gurus would be involved in our present struggles. When I try to place Jesus Christ in the mid-1980s, I feel sure that he would be working with the poor and oppressed peoples of the world, working to rid the so-called superpowers of the fear which feeds the arms race instead of feeding people. It is my belief that Jesus Christ was strung up on the cross because he was a stirrer. That is referred to in Luke, chapter 23, verse 5. His questions were making the authorities uncomfortable. He was challenging the status quo, and doing so non-violently. It is my guess that that would still be his position today. Radical Christians around the world agree with that. So we have at least half a dozen Catholic bishops in the United States prepared to commit civil disobedience to highlight the immorality of their own country's nuclear weapons testing program. They do this as witnesses to the gospel, to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Another point I want to clarify is the reference used by many Christians to criticise those of us who break the law in an act of civil disobedience. I refer to Paul's injunctions in Romans, chapter 13, to be subject to the government authorities. This injunction applied to authorities which in turn were subject to a higher authority. If they should turn away from God then the Christian has to choose between obeying God or obeying Caesar. This was the dilemma of Franz Jaggerstatter in Austria when the Bishop of Linz cited the scriptures to argue that all good citizens should serve in the armies of the Third Reich, the duly constituted authority. It is a dilemma for Christians in South Africa today where the Christian National apartheid government cites scripture to demand loyalty which includes military service in the defence of that regime. It has been a dilemma for pacifists since the early church abandoned pacifism for the Just War and every war since then has been a Just War blessed by the Church. We must remind ourselves of this ancient truth: That love endures and overcomes; that hatred destroys; that what is obtained by love is retained, but what is obtained by hatred proves a burden. This truth, fundamental to the position which reflects reliance on the method of war, is ultimately a religious perception, a belief that stands outside of history. I now wish to address the question of the illegality of weapons of mass destruction. It is evident that weapons of mass destruction have properties which are illegal according to international law. Briefly, their effects include the indiscriminate dispersal of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals; the exposure of combatants and civilians alike to irreversible biological and genetic damage; and the creation of unpredictable, uncontrollable and unprecedented environmental destruction of such temporal longevity as to threaten the biological identity of the human race and even the physical integrity of the planet. Several international treaties outlaw weapons which have such effects. I shall just list the names of those treaties, although I have the details of them if honourable senators require further information: the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907, the 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol, the Nuremberg Charter, Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter, the four 1949 Geneva Conventions on the Humanitarian Conduct of War, the Geneva Protocol of 1977 and the United Nations General Assembly Protocol 1653 (IV), which declares the use of nuclear weapons to be, inter alia, contrary to the rules of international law and the laws of humanity. An international lawyers conference met in 1987 in New York to discuss nuclear weapons and international law. It was sponsored by the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy in the United States and the Association of Soviet Lawyers. It laid the foundation for a global association-- Senator Puplick —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I am prompted to rise by Senator Vallentine's injunction that we should all obey the law. Standing Order 406 says that no senator shall read his speech. I suggest that on this occasion the Chair would not only be entitled to enforce that standing order but, given Romans, chapter 13, Senator Vallentine would gladly abide by your ruling. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Senator Vallentine, please take note that you are not supposed to read your speech. Senator VALLENTINE —Certainly. This international body of lawyers has met and decided to form an international association, with the probable result that countries will be taken to the International Court of Justice and will be held responsible by their own countries' citizens for violating such international law. Both the United States and the Soviet Union have, on previous experience, shown that they do not take very much notice of such international conventions and law. However, like the Medical Association for the Prevention of War, the international organisation which is having quite a significant effect on policy-making decisions around the world, this international lawyers association will probably have a similar effect. It is very important that lawyers around the world work together, both in the East and the West, to challenge their countries on this point of international law being denied by the presence of and threat to use weapons of mass destruction. I would now like to talk about civil disobedience as a tool for social change. It is true that there have been criticisms about my commitment to civil disobedience, but much of it indicates a lack of understanding of the concept of civil disobedience and its history. We need to remember how earlier civil disobedience campaigns led to the establishment of a number of basic freedoms we now enjoy. Civil disobedience is essentially a withdrawal of obedience, a refusal by individuals to give support to a wrong action or law. It involves the breaking of existing laws in the hope that the laws will be changed, an action based on conscience or obedience to a higher law. Those who break the law have to accept the consequences of their actions, which in Western society usually means fines or imprisonment. Civil disobedience can be associated with individual actions or mass actions. In this century civil disobedience is best known in association with the mass actions I have already referred to, inspired by the work of people like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. There are also many instances of individuals committing very effective civil disobedience. The best known record of civil disobedience can be found in Gene Sharp's book The Politics of Nonviolent Action. He gives many examples from all around the world of both mass actions and individual actions, dating right back to ancient Rome when the plebians struck against the authorities in 494 BC and withdrew to the Sacred Mount until an agreement was reached on improvements in their life and status. So civil disobedience has a very long history. Probably the best known dissertation on civil disobedience was written by the American Henry David Thoreau in about 1849. He was imprisoned for refusing to pay taxes to finance the Mexican war, of which he disapproved. The story is told of his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson visiting him in gaol and asking, `Henry, why are you here?' to which Thoreau replied, `Why are you not here?'. Thoreau's appeal is basically for individual action to wash one's hands clean of the evil and refuse to give it practical support. Before conservatives jump up and down in criticism of Thoreau's essay, I should remind them that his essay begins with the words, `I heartily accept the motto that government is best which governs least'. So he was not exactly a radical in every way. Mahatma Gandhi read a copy of Thoreau's essay when he was in gaol in South Africa and recognised its significance. He borrowed the title to explain this movement to Europeans. With Gandhi, civil disobedience was widely developed, along with other forms of non-violent action, as a substitute for violent rebellion. Gandhi's legacy has been of utmost importance. Gene Sharp writes: It was Gandhi who made the most significant personal contribution in the history of the nonviolent technique, with his personal experiments in the use of noncooperation, disobedience and defiance to control rulers, to alter government policies and to undermine political systems. What Gandhi was demonstrating was the doctrine of soul force. Just as there are physical forces which move bodies, so there is, claimed Gandhi, a soul force capable of moving souls. The object of `satyagraha' was `not to achieve physical domination, but to initiate those psychological processes which could make it possible for minds and hearts to meet'. Soul force is aimed not at the head but at the heart, the source of our values. Soul force enables us to resist oppressors, while at the same time to love them. The one who is using soul force in its various non-violent forms has embarked on an adventure of love. Adventure implies risk and hence the possibility of sacrifice. For a cause like the abolition of war, at least one thing is certain. The cause will not be won by argument alone. That may win some ground, but it will not take the citadel. Only love in action can do that. In the West, Gandhi's ideas were taken up by the civil rights movement in the United States under the leadership of Martin Luther King. His classic work on civil disobedience, Letter from Birmingham Jail, was written in 1963 on scraps of newspaper and pieces of writing paper supplied by another prisoner in response to a statement by eight fellow clergymen from Alabama who had described his activities as `unwise and untimely'. The civil rights movement grew out of the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955 and led to sit-ins and many other tactics of non-co-operation. This civil rights movement had an impact in Australia when Aboriginal people organised freedom rides in New South Wales and set up their tent embassy in Canberra in 1972 until the authorities removed it. Other Australian examples of non-violent resistance have been in New South Wales where the green bans raised the wrath of the developers. The Franklin blockade saved the last free-flowing wild river in Tasmania. Civil disobedience is the last resort in this respect and is not something to be taken on lightly. It is often said that civil disobedience can be practised only in a relatively humane society, but there are many examples of where it has been effective against brutal tyranny. Examples would include the Danish resistance to the nazis when the penalty for hiding Jews was death or the resistance of the Norwegian teachers to the nazi-quisling regime when many died in Arctic concentration camps during their eight-month struggle against the Government. There was the non-violent overthrow of military dictatorships in Guatemala and El Salvador in 1944. Civil disobedience is not a guarantee of success, but neither is the resort to armed force. It has been the main tool leading to the end of colonialism this century and many a Prime Minister has emerged from gaol to lead his country. Even today we see non-violent tactics being used in Kanaky, or New Caledonia, despite French attempts to provoke the Kanak people with a massive presence of armed police and soldiers. One characteristic of civil disobedience is that those who adopt it either as a principle or as a tactic must expect to be rubbished for it, as I am being rubbished here tonight, or face gaol or a fine. It is only in the last 30 years that civil disobedience has become a tactic of those of us who choose to resist the nuclear arms race. In the early 1950s a few Quakers and their friends in the Direct Action Committee entered United States military bases in the east of England-the forerunners of the campaign for nuclear disarmament. In 1958 the first Americans tried to sail into the United States nuclear testing area in the Marshall Islands and were promptly arrested. In the early 1970s a number of Australians were on small boats that sailed into the French nuclear testing area around Mururoa and several of them were beaten or arrested. Advocates of civil disobedience draw their defence from the Nuremberg principles-simply that people break a national law in allegiance to a higher law. The strength of civil disobedience involves an appeal to a higher moral authority than that of any individual nation serving its own interests. It was exactly this higher law that American woman Katya Komisaruka was guided by when, in June 1987, she quietly entered an American base at Vandenburg and disabled the Navstar missile guidance system which is part of the Government's nuclear first strike strategy. This brave woman's act of civil disobedience is costing her several years in prison. Her defence was based on Nuremberg principles. As long as people have any choice in the matter they cannot abdicate personal responsibility in committing immoral actions by claiming that they were merely following orders. It is interesting that in the coming months we will be discussing under the War Crimes Amendment Bill exactly this situation in relation to events that happened in Europe 40 years ago. I think it is important that we update our commitment to the Nuremberg principles and understand that crimes against humanity, punishable under international law, include planning for, preparation for, initiation of, or the waging of, war. So clearly, testing of weapons of mass destruction is in violation of the Nuremberg principles. As citizens of the world first, people belonging to any nation involved in preparation of acts of genocide should endeavour to stop their government. I believe that is an obligation under the Nuremberg principles. This is a lesson also clearly demonstrated by the long-standing witness against cruise missiles made by the brave women of Greenham Common and at numerous other sites in Western Europe. We are fed the line that nuclear weapons are a deterrent but they are there to be used in the event of a conflict between East and West. The military are planning to use them in such an eventuality and our leaders are prepared to give the orders to launch those missiles. United States bases in Australia are a vital part of such a scenario. In a war situation the United States is not going to ask our permission, just as it did not during the Yom Kippur war in the Middle East in 1973. On that occasion the bases were put on red alert. Australia has the ability to terminate agreements on the bases but if there is a war that escalates to a nuclear confrontation this Government will not have the time to give the United States 12 months or 180 days notice to quit. In Australia we are using civil disobedience as a last resort. We have tried for many years to explain to the people of this country what the US bases are really about but we have been met with a blanket of silence or, at best, sheer misinformation. `Truth is the first casualty of war' goes the old dictum but the same can be said of the nuclear state. To break the secrecy some of us have chosen to draw attention to Australia's role in preparations for nuclear war by breaking the law. We walked on to our own land, the land of Aboriginal people who were never consulted when that secret agreement about Pine Gap was signed in 1966, and we were arrested for it. Ironically, it was also on native people's land where I was arrested last year at the United States nuclear test site in Nevada, just as it was Aboriginal land in Australia which the British Government was given for its nuclear weapons testing program in the 1950s. Pine Gap is a crucial part of the Unites States military machine. Our Government admits to only one of the three roles of Pine Gap; that is, its benign monitoring and verification role which was merely an afterthought to justify its existence. The arms control agreements it is meant to monitor did not even exist in 1966. Pine Gap is first and foremost a ground control station for US signals intelligence satellites and was in fact established for this purpose. Its two main roles are to receive and transmit information from satellites as well as technological and human operatives-in other words, spies-and, most significantly, it controls the Rhyolite satellites stationed in pairs over the Horn of Africa and over Borneo. These satellites intercept electronic signals, including national and international telephone and radio communications. They suck up like a vacuum cleaner a wide range of communications from throughout the world and beam them back to Pine Gap for transmission to the United States. They also gather information on potential target sites in the Soviet Union and wherever else the Unites States sees fit. By intercepting radar signals, the US is able to map the location of targets such as Soviet early warning, air defence, anti-ballistic missile systems, air bases, satellite tracking-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! Senator Vallentine, your time has now expired. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(11.04) —I propose to descend to a more mundane level. I wish to speak about a report or a purported report which has been handed down by the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council entitled Privatisation-The Consumer Perspective. This document claims to be an attempt to examine objectively the issues involved in privatisation and to identify key questions which the Government, the community at large and the business world need to address. One might have thought that that was a laudable objective and what would then follow would be an impartial assessment of the issue, which the report acknowledges is quite controversial. Instead, what we get is a tirade of abuse and a litany of anti-privatisation crusaders ranging from such notables as Professor Wheelwright through to Hugh Stretton, Frank Walker, the New South Wales Minister for Housing, Bill Pollock, the former managing director of Telecom Australia and, finally, one John Langmore. Senator Watson —It is predictable, isn't it? Senator ALSTON —It is an utterly tendentious document because with that sort of cast one could expect only one outcome and, indeed, that is the outcome that is generated. I find the document particularly disappointing because it purports to be an intellectual assessment of an important subject, yet it descends to being a very poorly argued case against an important issue. I give one example of the way in which it verges on intellectual dishonesty. The report says: Studies in the US and the UK have shown that there is nothing intrinsically superior about performance under private ownership. The sole authority cited for that proposition is John Langmore. He wrote that in an article in a book which was published recently. That is the level of shoddy academic workmanship that is contained in this document. It proceeds to quote people such as Frank Walker as though they are experts on the subject. He says: Many essential public services are unprofitable and all the privatisation in the world won't alter that. Most public enterprises have valid social and political goals beyond private sector perspectives and the only way they could be successfully privatised would be by massive government subsidies. That is the sort of level of debate contained in this document. The term `massive privatisation' recurs throughout the document. Obviously it is a loaded term designed to suggest that somehow privatisation can be done only in massive doses. Walker's comment does not go anywhere near the logical extension of the argument because there is nothing intrinsically wrong with government subsidies. They need to be justified, targeted and socially desirable but they should not be ruled out per se. Yet Walker's conclusion seems to be that, horror of horrors, privatisation would have to be accompanied by some forms of subsidy. Senator Walsh —Who is Walker? Senator ALSTON —Frank Walker; he is a mate of yours. He is Minister for Housing in New South Wales. I acknowledge that he is a non-entity. He is a Labor Minister of some years standing but is quoted as an expert on this subject. That is a ludicrous proposition, but it is the sort of intellectual integrity that is contained in this document. That is utterly regrettable and disgraceful because this report has been paid for entirely by the taxpayers. It is published by the Australian Government Publishing Service and purports to be an objective assessment of an important issue. I think that is a disgraceful state of affairs. It is an intellectually dishonest document which does nothing to advance the cause of rational debate about competition and efficiency in the public sector. It provides virtually no advice on matters of national consumer interest and, indeed, one would be justified in asking what possible relevance there is for an outfit such as this to buy into the matter of privatisation. There is a very slender justification. Senator Watson —Are they all members of the Centre Left? Senator ALSTON —I was about to say that I found it most disturbing that the composition of the Council should be basically a collection of non-entities but that the Chairman should be one Justice Paul Stein who, I am told, is a judge of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court. In view of the fact that he has lent his name to this document, which is little more than a political pamphlet, and which is clearly a one-sided pseudoanalysis of an important issue, I consider that he should resign his position as Chairman of the Land and Environment Court because he has hopelessly compromised the standards of integrity and impartiality that should attach to judicial office. If he is in any way qualified to pronounce on issues of efficiency and competition, he has lamentably failed to discharge that obligation. The document is riddled with self-serving statements. Its ultimate conclusion, however, is that partial privatisation is all right. It cites the example of the New Zealand Government, which has recently issued shares in the Bank of New Zealand. It quotes from other sources to support that proposition. One would have thought that was a pretty feeble outcome from such trenchant criticism of the very notion of privatisation. For instance, the document quotes the Assistant Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Bill Mansfield. It is not stated where he came from, but we know that he came from the Telecommunications Employees Association. It says that Mr Mansfield claims that: far from being inherently inefficient, public enterprises are required to be efficient-- So I suppose it follows that they are. It quotes Mr Mansfield as giving the figures in support of his argument. Then he trots out the bottom line, so-called: Telecom is self-financing and returns . . . a . . . profit . . . of $385m. What does that prove? All it proves is that its prices are fixed in such a way that it is able to generate a particular amount of money. It could be compelled to return a profit of twice that amount because it is a monopoly. It is able to earn, so-called, whatever it chooses to earn subject to the Government deciding that it wants more of the take, if Senator Walsh is getting short of a quid, and asking it to pay $600m in interest because there is a desperate need to finance the deficit. Australia Post is given great marks for achieving an operating surplus of $23m in 1984-85. Why the report did not quote figures for 1985-86, let alone for 1986-87, I do not know, because this document came out only a couple of days ago. One would have thought that that figure is not terribly impressive. It also states that the Commonwealth Bank had an after tax profit of $23.6m in 1983-84. That is even more ancient history. It is ludicrous to suggest that because a very significant public sector enterprise is able to generate a very meagre profit, somehow that demonstrates efficiency. The whole notion of privatisation should be concerned with competition, with efficiency and with delivering a service at the lowest possible price, and it should concentrate on the gains that derive from those situations, from taking a monopoly out of a protected, cosseted and sheltered environment and putting it into an area where it has to face up to real life competition. The end result of that sort of exercise, such as the deregulation of the airlines in the United States of America or the deregulation and opening up to competition of three of the world's five largest telecommunications industries-the monopolies-has been that prices generally have fallen quite substantially. That is the sort of bottom line test that should be applied to privatisation concepts. It might not be the be-all and end-all, but it has a lot more going for it than simply maintaining public sector monopolies with no competition and no practical pressure for incentives to make it become more efficient. I regard this document as disgraceful. It is designed simply to advance a cause that is intellectually dishonest and which is riddled with left wing quotations but which does nothing to acknowledge the growing body of literature on the subject. I mention in passing that Professor John Kay recently published a book on deregulation and privatisation, that Cento Veljanovski has published a book called Selling off the State and that Oliver Letwin has published a book called Privatising the World. There is a plethora of material on privatisation. It might be of varying quality, but the fact is that it is there and it is able to be drawn upon. An abundance of documents have come out from the United Kingdom Treasury because the concept has been so successful that Britain is besieged with inquiries about how to emulate its performance. France and the Federal Republic of Germany are only two of the most recent European countries to embark on virtually wholesale privatisation exercises. Senator Puplick —Does the document quote any of Senator Gareth Evans's arguments in favour of privatisation? Senator ALSTON —No, the only one that gets a guernsey in that regard is Mr Dawkins. He is quoted as saying that we already have a very highly privatised economy and that there is no need to interfere with the public sector. I am sure that Mr Dawkins has recanted or that that was simply an outburst of lunacy that does not typify his current position. He was quoted as saying, `Australia has a small public sector and it is already highly privatised by international standards'. But, no, the honourable Gareth certainly does not get a run, and no doubt a lot of what Senator Walsh has had to say-- Senator Reid —Perhaps no-one takes him seriously. Senator ALSTON —Yes, and perhaps that is the case with Senator Walsh too. But there is no shortage of material around that demonstrates his enthusiasm for various forms of privatisation and real competition. That is why I conclude by saying that I regard the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council as having done a gross disservice to the debate in this country. It is a body which is obviously out of its depth and has been chaired by a person who is not fit to occupy that office and who should retreat to the judiciary and proceed to deal with matters of the land and the environment because he simply is not competent to cope with consumer affairs. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.16) —In response to Senator Vallentine, I wish to say this: Most of the people in this Government were being vilified in the 1960s and 1970s for opposing the then coalition Government which was conscripting and dispatching Australian youth to the Vietnam war. We deeply resent being subjected to sanctimonious sermons about peace and truth from people like Senator Vallentine, who joined the Country Party at the time when the Country Party was a partner in that coalition government sending those conscripts to the Vietnam war. For her next sermon she might ponder this question: Are those who, by the act of joining the Country Party at that time, endorsed conscription and Australia's involvement in that war also caught in her extensive net of moral culpability? Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.17 p.m. The following papers were tabled. Defence Act-Determination 1988-No. 3-Travelling Allowance and others. Postal Services Act-By-laws 1988-Postal Amendment No. 1. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations made under the following Ordinances- Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products), dated 17 December 1987. Motor Omnibus Services, dated 3 December 1987. Ordinance 1988-No. 2-Schools Authority (Amendment). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 45) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 14 September 1987: (1) When did the exercise of so-called `privatisation' begin in the United States commercial airline industry. (2) To what stage has that `privatisation' reached, and which airlines previously owned by the United States Government or its instrumentalities have been turned over to private enterprise. (3) What has been the cost benefit to the United States taxpayer of this exercise. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The commercial airline industry in the United States, from the time it began early this century, has been characterised by private ownership of the commercial passenger airlines. (2) I know of no commercial airline which has been owned by the United States Government and subsequently privatised. (3) It is therefore not possible to comment on the benefits or otherwise to the United States taxpayer of privatisation in that country. (Question No. 96) Senator Black asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 26 October 1987: (1) In relation to the Queensland Government's `Open Skies' policy adopted on 11 May 1987 has the Minister seen the State guidelines provided to companies operating, or applying to operate, intra-state air routes in Queensland. (2) Is it correct that these guidelines require that operators meet specific requirements on ``safety and reliability'' and that applicants establish that they are of ``good repute and character''. (3) Has the Federal Government been informed by the Queensland Government that Talair has met these specific requirements. (4) Can the Minister advise if the applicant must also demonstrate that it conforms to the guidelines by obtaining a Commonwealth supplementary airline licence. (5) Can the Minister advise if Talair's Queensland operator Flightwest holds such a licence. (6) If Flightwest is not now in receipt of such a licence, does this constitute a breach of the guidelines; if a company is in breach of the guidelines what penalties can be imposed by the State Government. (7) Has the Minister seen the reported comments of the Queensland Minister for Transport in the Townsville Bulletin of 31 June 1987; if so, is he aware that the Queensland Minister stated that his Department was in receipt of a letter from the Commonwealth Department of Aviation assuring the Queensland Minister for Transport and the Department that Talair had a satisfactory safety record. (8) Can the Minister confirm that the Commonwealth Department of Aviation has provided such assurances and if so were these assurances given in the case of Talair or Flightwest or both. (9) Has the Minister seen the Queensland Minister's comments on the Commonwealth Bureau of Air Safety and if so has this body conducted any investigation into Talair or Flightwest. (10) Can the Minister provide any information on the comparable safety records of other airline companies operating in Papua New Guinea, or other similar regions such as Indonesia or remote areas in the U.S.A. and Canada, during the same period of time in which Talair was operating in Papua New Guinea; and is it true that these companies were not involved in a similar number of fatal accidents as Talair. (11) Can the Minister provide any information on the circumstances surrounding Solair and the recent intervention of the Solomon Islands Government into the affairs of this airline then under the control of Talair, and did the intervention relate to the non-payment of taxes and charges by Solair to the Solomon Islands Government. (12) Was Talair's Australian operation, based in Cairns, charged and convicted last year with breaches of Australian aviation regulations. (13) Does the Minister believe that the check, training and management policies of Talair, if applied to Flightwest, its Australian operator, give concern that Flightwest may be an undesirable operator in this country. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. However I have received a briefing which covered the principles outlined in the policy. (2) The Queensland Government's ``Open Skies'' policy requires that operators meet certain qualitative criteria. However I am not aware of the details of the criteria. (3) No formal advice has been received on whether Talair or its subsidiaries have met the Queensland Government's criteria. (4) Federal and State requirements are separate issues. An operator must comply with Federal requirements before a supplementary airline licence can be issued. (5) Following compliance with all Federal operational requirements for issue of the respective licences, a charter licence was issued to the company on 1 June 1987 and a supplementary airline licence was issued on 16 July 1987. (6) I refer the Honourable Senator to my answer to question 5. (7) I have not seen the Queensland Minister for Transport's comments reported in the Townsville Bulletin but I am aware that the Department of Aviation had advised the Queensland Government that Talair had a satisfactory safety record based on examination of records of Australian Air Safety occurrences. (8) The letter from the Department of Aviation commented on the Australian safety record of Talair. (9) I have not seen the Queensland Minister's comments on the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation. The Bureau has not conducted any investigation into Talair or Flightwest. (10) The PNG environment is much more demanding and hazardous than most others in the world. The only valid comparison possible in this case is an operators record to the overall record in the country of operation. Information received from the PNG Civil Aviation Authorities has indicated that although Talair has been involved in about one third of all accidents in PNG the company has flown more than half the total hours flown by all operators in that country. Talair's record is, therefore better than the PNG average. (11) The information requested by the Honourable Senator in this question is not available from within my Portfolio. (12) Yes. (13) Flightwest as the holder of Australian air service licences, is required to satisfy Australian operational standards. The company is subject to the same surveillance as any other operator in Australia. (Question No. 97) Senator Black asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 26 October 1987: (1) Has the Minister seen a report in the Courier-Mail, of 29 May, 1987, which states that Talair was battling to obtain licences in time for its new company Flightwest to start operating Western Queensland routes from Monday, 1 June 1987. (2) Can the Minister confirm that since 1975 Talair and its subsidiary Solair has been involved in 14 fatal accidents which have caused the deaths of 95 passengers, pilots and bystanders. Reported details of these accidents are as follows. FATAL ACCIDENTS-TALAIR AND SOLAR SINCE JUNE 1975 Date: 25.2.76 Aircraft Registration: P2-GKC Type: C/402 Location: Brugam Pilot Fatalities: 0 Passenger Fatalities: Nil passengers, 4 bystanders Remarks: Aircraft overran airstrip Date: 25.10.77 Aircraft Registration: P2-GKP Type: Baron Location: Kiriwana Pilot Fatalities: 1 Remarks: Aircraft into sea Date: 17.12.77 Aircraft Registration: P2-SEE Type: C/206 Location: Bundi Pilot Fatalities: 1 Passenger Fatalities: 8 Date: 2.2.78 Aircraft Registration: P2-TGT Type: Twin Otter Location: Garaina Pilot Fatalities: 1 Passenger Fatalities: 0 Date: 22.10.78 Aircraft Registration: VP-PAM Type: BN2 Location: North of Rennell Is. Pilot Fatalities: 1 Passenger Fatalities: 10 Remarks: Lost at sea Date: 22.10.78 Aircraft Registration: P2-SEL Type: C/206 Location: Marawaka Pilot Fatalities: 1 Passenger Fatalities: 7 Date: 18.5.79 Aircraft Registration: P2-GKS Type: Baron Location: Sinsibai Pilot Fatalities: 1 Passenger Fatalities: 1 Date: 19.7.80 Aircraft Registration: P2-GKN Type: Baron Location: Tari Gap Pilot Fatalities: 1 Passenger Fatalities: 4 Date: 20.7.80 Aircraft Registration: P2-ISF Type: BN2 Location: Mount Hagen Pilot Fatalities: 0 Passenger Fatalities: 1 Date: 1.4.81 Aircraft Registration: P2-GKJ Type: C/402 Location: Mount Hagen Pilot Fatalities: 1 Passenger Fatalities: 6 Date: 1.9.82 Aircraft Registration: P2-SEG Type: C/206 Location: Doma Peaks Pilot Fatalities: 0 Passenger Fatalities: 3 Date: 13.1.84 Aircraft Registration: P2-ISH Type: BN2 Location: Near Omkalai Pilot Fatalities: 1 Passenger Fatalities: 9 Date: -.9.84 Aircraft Registration: P2-IS? Type: BN2 Location: Mount Dill Pilot Fatalities: 1 Passenger Fatalities: 12 Date: 6.2.87 Aircraft: Unknown Type: Bandierante Location: Off Hoskins Pilot Fatalities: 1 Passenger Fatalities: 14 Remarks: Into the sea Total Pilot Fatalities: 11 Total Passenger Fatalities: 84 (3) Can the Minister also confirm that since January 1981, Talair has been involved in the following 17 non-fatal accidents listed as follows. Date: 6.2.81 Registration: P2-ISH Type: BN2 Location: Kanabea Remarks: Nose wheel fell off Date: 3.3.81 Registration: P2-SEK Type: C/206 Location: Not known Remarks: Engine failure Date: -.3.81 Registration: P2-PAD Type: BN2 Location: Port Moresby Remarks: General damage Date: -.3.81 Registration: P2-GKS Type: C/402 Location: Ihu Remarks: General damage Date: -.6.81 Registration: P2-ISA Type: BN2 Location: Rabaul Remarks: General damage Date: -.6.81 Registration: P2-GKO Type: Baron Location: Rakandra Remarks: Write off Date: 7.12.81 Registration: P2-GKU Type: Baron Location: Lae Remarks: Into sea Date: 6.3.82 Registration: P2-GKA Type: C/402 Location: Karawai Remarks: Aborted takeoff, major damage Date: 16.4.87 Registration: P2-ISA Type: BN2 Location: Maramuni Remarks: Overran strip, 4 very seriously injured Date: 5.4.87 Registration: P2-GKL Type: C/402 Location: Rabaul Remarks: Wheels up landing Date: 1.5.87 Registration: P2-SEJ Type: C/206 Location: Kiunga Remarks: Heavy landing, unreported Date: 4.11.87 Registration: P2-RDC Type: Bandierante Location: Port Moresby Remarks: Crashed on take-off, aircraft burnt out Date: -.3.82 Registration: Not known Type: BN2 Location: Engati Remarks: Bog, nosewheel off Date: 26.3.83 Registration: P2-GKA Type: C/402 Location: Lake Murray Remarks: Pilot and 3 passengers seriously injured. Overloaded Date: -.12.83 Registration: P2-GKI Type: C/402 Location: New Britain Remarks: Engine failure Date: 4.2.84 Registration: P2-SEI Type: C/206 Location: Unknown Remarks: Substantially damaged Date: -.1.87 Registration: Not known Type: C/402 Location: Tabubil Remarks: Landed wheels up (4) If this safety record, as reported to me, is correct, can the Minister advise as to the reasons why Talair is being paid an annual subsidy of 1.35 million dollars by the Queensland State Government to operate the Western Queensland routes previously flown by Australian Airlines. (5) If this appalling safety record is correct can the Minister advise what action can be taken to protect the lives of Queenslanders flying with Talair on these inland routes. (6) Can the Minister advise as to what investigations, if any, were made by the Queensland Government to determine the qualifications of Talair to operate in Australia and why this company was given preference over Queensland-based companies with excellent safety records which had offered to fly the same routes for lower levels of subsidy. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Flightwest applied for a supplementary airline licence on 14 May 1987. It subsequently applied for a charter licence on 26 May 1987. Following compliance with all Federal operational requirements for the licences a supplementary airline licence was issued on 16 July 1987 and a charter licence on 1 June 1987. (2) Information provided by the PNG Civil Aviation Authorities reveals several inaccuracies in the details of the accidents listed in Senator Black's question. Since 1975, Talair have had 63 accidents including 13 which caused 76 fatalities. However, the number of accidents has reduced significantly since 1983 with only one fatal accident in early 1987 which unfortunately claimed 15 lives. (3) I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question 97 (2). (4) The details contained in the Queensland Minister for Transport's press statement of 11 May 1987 outline the reasons why the Queensland Government awarded the routes and annual subsidy of $1.35m to Flightwest Airlines. I am not aware of any considerations beyond those. (5) The regular Federal surveillance of aircraft operations within Australia will apply to Flightwest. Flightwest will be required to comply with all Federal standards for aviation safety while operating within Queensland. (6) I am not aware of the details of investigations, if any, conducted by the Queensland Government into Talair or its subsidiaries. (Question No. 116) Senator Black asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 13 November 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Transport and Communications aware that Talair and its Queensland operator, Flightwest, have entered into a contract with the Queensland Government. (2) Is the Minister aware that this contract involves an annual payment of an estimated $1.3 million by the Queensland Government to Flightwest. (3) Is the Minister aware that the Queensland Transport Minister, the Honourable Don Lane, is involved in maintaining this contract, and the resulting payment, to Flightwest. (4) Is the Minister aware of any payment Mr Lane has personally received from Talair or Flightwest to ensure this contract is maintained and the level of payment from the Queensland Government to Flightwest, is, at the very least, continued. (5) Is there any action the Minister can take in relation to these matters, particularly in the light of previous Questions on Notice Nos 94, 96 and 97 (Senate Notice Paper, 26 and 27 October 1987, pp. 360-361, 380-384). Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I am aware that the former Queensland Minister for Transport, the Honourable Don Lane MLA, announced on 11 May 1987 the decision to award to Flightwest Airlines certain western Queensland air services, formerly operated by Australian Airlines, with an annual subsidy of $1.35m on 11 May 1987. (3) and (4) I am not privy to details of the arrangements between the State Government and Flightwest Airlines beyond those contained in Mr Lane's press statement of 11 May 1987. (5) Flightwest is subject to the same monitoring arrangements as apply to all other similar operators to ensure compliance with Australia's high safety standards. The Commonwealth has no role in the economic regulation of intrastate aviation. (Question No. 127) Senator Sanders asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 19 November 1987: (1) Now that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has decided that the Department of Transport and Communications must allow a colour-blind pilot, Arthur Pape, to fly at night, will the Department now amend procedures to remove restrictions for all colour blind pilots; if not, why not. (2) Why did the Department make the totally unrealistic demand that Arthur Pape have a fully T.S.O.'D. second V.H.F. radio on an independent electrical bus. (3) Will the Department take steps to change obstruction lights from flashing red to flashing white to remove any possible difficulties encountered by colour blind pilots; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision in regard to Dr Pape acknowledged that he did not meet the required medical standard, in that he has defective colour vision, and therefore could not be granted unconditional licences. The Tribunal's decision affirmed the Department's decision that Dr Pape could not fly at night at all on his Commercial Licence. It permits him to fly at night on his Private Licence, but only subject to a number of restrictions which the Tribunal considered appropriate to his particular level of skill and experience, and the nature of his colour vision defect. With regard to other colour defective pilots, the Tribunal said ``the fact that a decision has been made in respect of one person with a particular medical condition cannot be taken to require necessarily that a similar decision be made in respect of another person with the same medical condition''. Any applications to fly at night by these pilots would be considered on their merits, taking into account the Tribunal's decision in the Pape case. There is no basis in the Tribunal's decision for a blanket removal of restrictions on colour defective pilots. (2) The Department did not make such a demand. (3) No. The proposed system would be contrary to international practice. The suggested change may be of some advantage to some but not all colour defective pilots, but this gain would be more than offset by the significant expenditure involved and disruption caused to those pilots with normal colour vision who greatly outnumber the colour defectives. (Question No. 134) Senator Hamer asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 25 November 1987: Would the Minister provide the following information on all industrial disputes in the maritime industry relating to the 4 per cent second tier wage rise: (a) the total number of disputes; (b) the locality of each dispute; (c) the details of reasons for each dispute; (d) the total number of manhours lost in these disputes; (e) the effect on exports as a result of any of these disputes in terms of- (i) amount of cargo held up, (ii) nature of cargo, (iii) destination of cargo, and (iv) value of cargo in terms of export earnings, and (f) the total estimated cost to revenue of these disputes. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (a) Since the National Wage Case decision on 10 March 1987, the Department recorded fifteen individual industrial stoppages up to 31 December 1987 affecting the maritime industry and related to the second tier wage rise. (b) and (c) The following table indicates the locality of each dispute, the reason for each dispute and the estimated number of shipdays directly lost as a result of the disputes Location/Period Unions Reason for Dispute Shipdays 1. Sydney Botany Bay Melbourne Fremantle 1/4/87 -6/4/87 Seamens Union of Australia Firemen & Deckhands Union Tug crew bans on foreign flag container vessels in support of second tier. 24 vessels delayed 97 2. Sydney Botany Bay 13/4/87 -13/4/87 Seamens Union of Australia Tug crew bans on foreign flag container vessels in support of second tier. 12 vessels delayed 6 3. Hobart 11/5/87-12/5/87 Transport Workers Union 24 hour stoppage protesting delay at National Wage Case rise. No vessels delayed - 4. Sydney 2/6/87-4/6/87 Merchant Service Guild Tug masters ban in support of second tier. 1 vessel delayed 3 5. Sydney 6/8/87-6/8/87 Firemen & Deckhands Union Linesmen stopwork meeting to discuss second tier claim. 3 vessels delayed 1 6. Launceston 17/8/87- 19/8/87 Various Land Based Unions Stoppage over second tier. 1 vessel delayed 2 7. Adelaide 28/9/87- 13/10/87 Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union Mooring gangs involved in 24 hour stoppages in dispute with S.A. Dept. Marine and Harbours over second tier. 3 vessels delayed 9 8. Fremantle 19/10/87- 20/10/87 Aust. Stevedoring Supervisors Association Stevedoring supervisors stoppage over second tier. 7 vessels delayed 7 9. All Major Ports 22/10/87 -26/10/87 Aust. Stevedoring Supervisors Association Stevedoring supervisors national stoppage over second tier. 30 vessels delayed 92 10. Fremantle 23/10/87 ASSA Stevedoring supervisors stopwork meeting to discuss second tier. 2 vessels delayed 1 11. All Major Ports 30/10/87 ASSA Aust. Foremen Stevedores Assocn. Stevedoring supervisors and Foremen stopwork meetings to discuss second tier. 26 vessels delayed 5 12. All Major Ports 1/11/87-2/11/87 ASSA Stevedoring supervisors national stoppage in support second tier. 27 vessels delayed 27 13. Sydney Botany Bay 6/11/87-10/11/87 Merchant Service Guild Port controllers stoppage in dispute with NSW Maritime Services Board over second tier. 34 vessels delayed. 136 14. Fremantle 12/11/87- 12/11/87 Seamens Union of Australia Mooring gangs 24 hour ban in support of second tier. 3 vessels delayed 1 15. All Major Ports 7/12/87 Australian Shipping Officers' Assocn. Shipping clerks stopwork meeting to discuss second tier No vessels delayed - Total Shipdays Lost... 387 (d) The total number of manhours lost as a result of these disputes is not recorded by the Department except in the case of disputes involving stevedoring unions. The disputes relating to second tier claims in the stevedoring industry by the Australian Stevedoring Supervisors' Association during October resulted in the loss of 10,279 manhours. The figures for November are not yet available. (e) Details of the effect on exports as a result of any of these disputes in terms of the amount, nature, destination and value of cargo held up are not available. The statistics generally do not distinguish between various types of ship or cargo delayed or otherwise affected by such disputes. However, in the case of the first two disputes listed in the above table, the class of vessel can be distinguished because the bans specifically affected container vessels. Container vessels trading to Australia during 1986-87 on average carried 6700 tonnes of exports. During 1986/87 the average value per tonne of container cargo exports was around $2,000 per tonne. Consequently, the estimated value of export cargo on container ships was about $13.4 million per vessel. There were 36 ships affected by the first two industrial disputes listed so that the estimated value of export cargo delayed in these disputes would be around $480 million. (f) The total estimated direct and indirect costs of such disputes to various parties which may be affected cannot be reliably estimated because of the large number of variable factors involved. Although the costs to shipowners of delays are reasonably attributable, even these vary with differences in the nature of the ship, the number of crew, rates of pay and charges applied by port authorities. A reasonable broad estimate on the cost of a day's delay to a vessel is $25,000. On this basis, the cost to shipowners of industrial disputes recorded in relation to the second tier pay rise would be around $9.7 million from March 1987 until 31 December 1987. It cannot be assumed, however, that all of the additional costs accruing to shipowners will necessarily be passed on to Australian shippers or importers by way of increased freight rates or vessel charter costs because of the highly competitive nature of the shipping industry. The costs of disputes to shippers are more difficult to ascertain, however a possibly indicative estimate in the case of the first two disputes given in the table might be derived. If these disputes resulted in customers' payments being delayed by a period equal to the length of the dispute, additional costs (by way of finance costs on cargo) of around $380,000 would have been incurred by the shippers whose cargo was affected.