Thursday, 24 March 1988 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator D. J. Hamer) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable The President and the members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. That we express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances for the purpose of food irradiation and disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coates (from 168 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some Scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendations of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Colston (from 438 citizens) Giles (from 176 citizens) and Jones (from 364 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: that the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill: 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under law, 2. deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Senate should: completely reject the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 52 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 introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore request 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. by Senators Jones (from 145 citizens) and McKiernan (from 135 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend certain taxation laws to provide concessions for discounts offered on employee share acquisitions. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —On behalf of Senator Tate, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, and for related purposes. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —A paper is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- The Commonwealth Prisoners Act-Law Reform Commission Report No. 43 (Interim)-section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. Motion (by Senator Collins) agreed to: That Regulation 3 of the Freedom of Information (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 284 and made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, be disallowed. Motion (by Senator Giles) agreed to: (1) That, for the purpose of the inquiry and report by the Committee of Privileges on the circulation and submission of petitions to the Senate: (a) the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records and to move from place to place, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives; and (b) a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received a letter from the Opposition Whip requesting changes to the memberships of Estimates Committees C and D. Motion (by Senator Richardson)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Archer and Sheil be discharged from Estimates Committees C and D, respectively, for the period 24 March 1988 to 17 May 1988, and that Senators Watson and Bjelke-Petersen, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36ab, be appointed members of Estimates Committees C and D, respectively, for that period. 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)(10.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Norfolk Island Act to enable the Norfolk Island Government to appoint its own auditor to audit the public accounts of the Territory of Norfolk Island. At present, the Act requires the accounts to be audited by the Auditor-General for the Commonwealth. The proposed amendments will enable the Norfolk Island Administrator-on the advice of the Legislative Assembly-to appoint a person or firm to be the Norfolk Island Government Auditor and to set the terms and conditions of the Auditor's employment. Only a person who is, or a firm at least one member of which is, registered as an auditor under Commonwealth or Norfolk Island companies legislation may be appointed as Auditor. The Bill enables the Commonwealth Auditor-General or a State Auditor-General to accept appointment. The Auditor will audit the accounts of the Norfolk Island Administration and the accounts of Territory authorities, other than authorities for which separate audit requirements exist under Territory legislation. The Bill imposes appropriate duties on the Auditor and includes provisions designed to ensure the independence of the Auditor and access to relevant documents and information. The Bill also makes provision for the Legislative Assembly to set auditing standards to be complied with by the Auditor. In setting such standards the Assembly will be required to have regard to the auditing standards set by the Commonwealth Auditor-General under the Audit Act and by the relevant professional accounting bodies. The Auditor will report to the President of the Assembly, who will be required to table the report in the Legislative Assembly. The Auditor will also provide a copy of the report to the Administrator to send to the Commonwealth Minister administering the Norfolk Island Act. This latter provision will ensure that the Minister remains appropriately informed of the financial affairs of the Administration and Territory authorities. The Norfolk Island Act of 1979 established a framework for self-government in the Territory, including a Legislative Assembly and exercise of executive powers. As foreshadowed in the Act, the self-government powers of the Territory have been extended since the Act was passed. The proposed amendments will further enlarge the Territory's self-government powers in a significant area of responsibility. The proposed amendments have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 23 March. Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3 (Principal Act). Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.08) —Clause 3 indicates quite clearly that the principal Act which this legislation is amending is the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. I wish to say something about that apropos what I thought was a particularly significant editorial in the Australian newspaper of 22 March which states: The Federal Government's World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, so well-intentioned at the outset, has become an unfortunate emblem of strife between Federal and State governments and between the centralised government and the individual. The Opposition entirely agrees with that assessment. The editorial continues: In the case of North Queensland, the Federal Government gave the timber industry a bare six months to stop production-a rate totally inconsistent and unreasonable when compared with its demands upon industries such as motor vehicles and textiles. The editorial goes on to say: The Commonwealth, if it proposes to intervene in any area for the sake of heritage, also has a duty of care towards the individuals and industries affected. That duty includes taking a fuller and more balanced view of the economic and social factors unleashed-in other words to provide some kind of impartial heritage impact statement canvassing both the environmental and economic resource aspects of a proposed listing. In conclusion I simply say that, to the extent that the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 remains on foot and within the ambit of the Commonwealth to take certain actions under, I believe that those words in the editorial of the Australian are germane and that they ought to be more closely understood and adhered to by the Government in its operations. In fact, they ought to be the model by which proceedings under this Act continue in the future. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 agreed to. Clause 5 (Identified Property). Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.10) —Can a finding of a Commonwealth inquiry be challenged in Australian courts on the basis of whether a property forms part of the cultural or natural heritage? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.11) —The result of an inquiry can be challenged. As I understand it, it cannot be challenged on the grounds of the values, however. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.11) —I take note of the Minister's answer. Is a Commonwealth inquiry a precondition of a Commonwealth World Heritage nomination? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.12) —It is not a precondition, no. Certainly it is a possibility; it is not a precondition. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.12) —Can a Commonwealth declaration by regulation be challenged in Australian courts on the basis of whether the declared property forms part of the cultural or natural heritage? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.13) —If it is referring to the regulation, yes. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.13) —Unequivocally? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Morris) —The Minister has answered the question. He did not add the last part that you added. Senator WATSON —My fourth question is: Does the existing and proposed legislation constitute a sufficient basis for the Commonwealth to impose the land management provisions of World Heritage convention on Australian property? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.14) —The legislation does not address that at all, as far as I am aware. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.13) —Could the Minister give further consideration to that question? The Minister's answer was that the Bill does not address the issue of my question? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.14) —That is correct. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.15) —The regime which is established by clause 5 for the identification of properties is central to the Opposition's objections to the way in which the Government is proceeding. I draw attention to proposed new section 3A (1) (a) (i); that is to say, where a property: is subject to an inquiry established by a law of the Commonwealth whose purpose, or one of whose purposes, is to consider whether the property forms part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage. I wish to address a couple of questions to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I understand from the Minister's answer to Senator Watson that an inquiry is not a necessary prerequisite for proceeding towards nomination, and I accept that that is correct. However, I wish to know a little about the nature of these inquiries which are proposed to be established. In particular, since the inquiry must be established by a law of the Commonwealth, is this to be taken to mean that the inquiry must be a statutory inquiry, or is it capable of being an inquiry established by executive act? In other words, because the Minister has not indicated precisely how the Government will proceed, does each inquiry require an Act of Parliament in the way in which the Lemonthyme inquiry was established; or could an Act be introduced which provides for the setting up of inquiries from time to time for purposes related to this particular matter? In other words, could there be an Act called, for the sake of argument, the World Heritage Properties (Conservation Inquiries) Act which says, `The Minister may from time to time establish inquiries under this Act to consider matters falling within a particular section of the legislation'; or would there have to be a separate inquiry established by statute to look at each of the matters arising as potential World Heritage nominations? In other words, there would have to be a Shark Bay inquiry Act or a Kimberley inquiry Act, or whatever it happened to be, for that purpose. It seems to me that that is an important question for us to have clear in our minds-not the least reason being that the proposed new section as printed refers to inquiries `one of whose purposes' is to look at these various matters. Does the Minister believe that this requirement would be satisfied if in terms of any inquiry established for alleged environmental purposes he were simply to add to the terms of reference of such an inquiry a term of reference which says, `Whether in relation to the findings of any of the above the Commonwealth should consider placing the respective property before the World Heritage Committee for possible inclusion on the World Heritage List'? In other words, if an inquiry were looking at land use management in the southern part of New South Wales and one simply put in as a minor term of reference paragraph (f) or (g) or something down the list, it would cover consideration of the potential World Heritage value of the area concerned. I believe that this is very important. Unless the procedure involved provides for the establishment of separate specific inquiries for each of the potential World Heritage nominations being considered, we shall find ourselves with an ambit claim operation, an Act of Parliament which will allow the Minister to establish inquiries which may not be public inquiries, and which may be established by executive act without the attention of the Parliament being specifically drawn to each of these on a case by case basis. I am extremely concerned about that matter and believe that it is not the proper way to proceed. The second area in this clause which I address is the question of timing. As I read the clause there is no requirement that such an inquiry be completed within a specified period. It is certainly true that property is the subject of an inquiry only until the end of 42 days after the report has been given to the Minister and that property ceases to be in the same category seven days after the day on which the Commonwealth has been informed by the World Heritage Committee that the prospective nomination has been dealt with. There seems to me to be no time limit imposed on the conduct of an inquiry under this part. So we could have a situation in which an inquiry takes 18 months to two years, because there is no statutory limit on the inquiry, and that area is taken within the ambit of the Minister's powers under this Act for the period the inquiry is in progress. Indeed, it seems to me that there is absolutely nothing that prevents another inquiry being set up. As soon as one inquiry has finished and the 42-day period has passed under subclause (2) of clause 3a, or the seven-day period has passed under subclause (3) of clause 3a, another inquiry may be put on foot, perhaps to look at a slightly different aspect of precisely the same property or precisely the same inquiry. I am certainly concerned that not enough attention is being paid to the time limit that ought to be imposed on inquiries of this sort. I draw attention to some remarks made by His Honour Mr Justice Deane in the High Court of Australia in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry case. It seems to me that two passages of His Honour's judgment are important in this regard, particularly given the answers which have previously been given to Senator Watson on this clause. His Honour says: When that question- that is to say, the question of the proper use of the Commonwealth's external affairs power- is fairly faced, the material before the Court leads inevitably to the conclusion that there has been no real effort made to confine the prohibitions of the overall protective regime, with the overriding of the ordinary rights of citizens and the ordinary jurisdiction of the State of Tasmania which it would involve, to activities which it might reasonably be thought represented some real actual or potential threat to what might properly be seen, for the purposes of the Convention as natural or cultural heritage. Elsewhere His Honour says this in relation to the area which was being particularly examined: Insignificant though those areas may be in the overall perspective from Canberra, their owners, few though they may be, are citizens whose lives and property are beyond the reach of the Parliament except to the extent authorized by a relevant grant of Commonwealth legislative power. Yet there was no effort by the Commonwealth to justify the application of the protective regime, with all its stringency, to those privately owned areas of freehold land. Indeed, at times in the argument, it seemed that the Commonwealth had not ascertained what the practical impact of the imposition of the restrictive regime would be on the lives and livelihood of those who own or use land within the protected areas for other than logging purposes. This is quite central to this whole debate. This is a judge of the High Court of Australia saying, quite clearly, that he has the impression that the attitude of the Commonwealth is summed up in his phrase `insignificant though those areas may be in the overall perspective from Canberra'. Yet, under this regime, we find that the Minister's powers will be attracted, without limitation of time, because there has been established an inquiry which may be established without this Parliament being properly party to its establishment if the Minister proceeds on the basis of having some global and ongoing piece of legislation which will allow him to establish inquiries from time to time. This clause does not sufficiently give an indication as to whether there must be a specific inquiry for a specific area to be evaluated for possible declaration as identified property, nor does it give any protection in terms of the time limit within which that inquiry must be completed. I believe that both of those omissions are serious omissions from this clause. They are matters that need to be addressed, and on this I seek further advice from the Minister as to how he intends to proceed. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.25) —The reason for the wording `the property is subject to an inquiry established by a law of the Commonwealth' is to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny of any inquiry that the Government chooses to institute. Otherwise there would have to be either a separate Act for each inquiry that the Government sought to hold, or a global Act, if you like, for a number of inquiries. Those inquiries would be established by regulation and therefore also subject to parliamentary scrutiny. So, there is certainly no attempt in the Bill to avoid that scrutiny. That would not be possible. Senator Puplick asked about time limits. The difficulty there is that one does not know how long an inquiry will take. For example, the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests inquiry will proceed for something like one year. Given the scope of such an inquiry, it would be difficult to include a time limit in the Bill. One simply cannot judge the duration of an inquiry at the commencement of it. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.27) —I wish to pursue the point raised by Senator Puplick and initially responded to by the Minister. I thank the Minister for his comments, but I must say that I find his response to Senator Puplick to be deeply unsatisfactory. To reiterate the point of concern, Senator Puplick drew attention to the provision relating to identified property in proposed section 3a (1) (a) (i) of the Act, if the Bill becomes an Act, which states that identified property will be property which is subject to an inquiry established by a law of the Commonwealth whose purpose, or one of whose purposes, is to consider whether the property forms part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage. In response to Senator Puplick's question on that aspect, Senator Richardson said that it would be difficult, because of the uncertainty of the duration of inquiries, to set any time limit upon the period during which an inquiry that has been established-I shall return to the question of how it is established-should run. Although I understand the administrative point, if you like, that the Minister made, and I think it is a perfectly fair point, nevertheless I should hope the Minister would agree that it is deeply unsatisfactory that there should be an open-ended clause of this kind in a Bill of such draconian potential as this. I do not apologise for using the word `draconian', and I emphasise the word `potential'. After all, in recent years in this Parliament we have seen the development of what I think is a very proper practice with many Bills of including sunset clauses that are designed to meet what I think are the perfectly proper concerns of the citizens and of their parliamentary representatives that legislation that might be thought to be good at the time it is introduced must nevertheless be later reviewed by the Parliament. Of course, unless a Bill which contains a sunset clause is extended by further action of the Parliament, the Act terminates and ceases to have effect. I suggest to Senator Richardson that the Government ought to think again about the open-ended nature of this clause. I will suggest some reasons why that might be so. I hope the Minister will accept that I do not wish to impute any ill motivations either to him or to his potential successors in this matter, but the plain fact of the matter is that when one has a clause of this kind it provides the Minister of the Crown of the day with the most enormous potential to blackmail-I hope that word will not be misunderstood-the people whose properties are involved in the proposal for an inquiry into the potential listing of such properties for World Heritage purposes. Again, let me be very clear-if I have not already been so-that I am not imputing motivations of that kind to either the drafters of the Bill or the Minister in putting the Bill before the Parliament. What I am saying is that we live in an imperfect world and that there will come a time in the future of this country when this Bill will be used by a future Minister to put what I think in the circumstances-I do not want to use the word `blackmail' again, but I will use a lesser term-would be improper pressure on the people whose livelihoods are affected and whose other considerations, perfectly proper considerations, will be affected by the presence of an inquiry of this kind and by the fact that the inquiry will continue for some time. While such an inquiry is continuing those people are then subject to all the other constraints and possible penalties which the Bill provides, which we will come to when we deal with the clauses concerning those matters. I have not a specific amendment to suggest. In any case, I would not presume to do so with Senator Puplick sitting beside me. However, I want to say with the deepest earnestness to the Minister that I really believe that this is an area in which the Government ought to show its bona fides by itself putting forward a proposal to limit the duration of any inquiry. Otherwise, as Senator Puplick has very clearly spelled out, we have a situation in which having first of all begun to discuss the possibility of an inquiry there is the possibility, because of the open-ended nature of this clause, to put improper pressure upon those affected by the inquiry not to protest against it, not to begin to call meetings such as we have seen up in Ravenshoe and places such as that in the Queensland tropical rainforests because if they do the Minister or one of his advisers can say, `You know what will happen if you start kicking up a fuss about the matter, don't you? The Minister will simply prolong the inquiry for five years, or 10 years if you want to kick up a real fuss'. We will get that kind of improper pressure brought to bear upon people whose livelihoods are affected. That is the first kind of improper pressure even before, so to speak, the inquiry actually gets under way. The second kind of improper pressure-I think Senator Puplick already presaged this point in his earlier remarks; therefore I will not go over the point at undue length, it having been made by my colleague-can be brought to bear once the inquiry has been established because if there should be what the Minister or his advisers rightly or wrongly regard as untoward reaction against the inquiry, again of the kind which the Minister would certainly regard as untoward opposition in regard to the events in north Queensland recently, there is opportunity under this clause of the Bill for the Minister to bring improper pressure to bear on the people concerned. It is possible for him to say, `If you are going to behave like this, to protest and to write letters to the newspaper, to call public meetings and to abuse the Government or to do any of those things that I as Minister think you should not be doing'-even though they are perfectly legal and proper activities on the part of citizens in a free country-`it will be open to me to extend the inquiry'. Again, I am not referring to the present Minister or any of his advisers. I am referring to the potential which the Bill creates. There will be opportunity for that Minister or his advisers to say, `All right, you have asked for it. What we are going to do is to extend the inquiry for another period by adding another piece onto it. I am going to put in another term of reference. I will add another two terms of reference'. I see that the Minister is nodding. I am glad to have his assent to the point of principle which I raise. I take it that that is what he is assenting to. Senator Richardson —I understand the problem. Senator STONE —I appreciate that. Since the Minister has indicated that he does understand the point being made, I will not detain the Committee any longer. However, I repeat: it is not just a case of understanding the point; it is a case of doing something about it-that is, removing from the Bill the open-ended nature of this provision. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.36) —The reason the Bill does not provide for the Minister simply to set up an inquiry is to make sure that Parliament has the scrutiny that it would require. I envisaged that if in the future a Minister wanted to set up an inquiry, it would be up to the Parliament, at the time a Bill was presented here for that purpose, to look at that sort of time limit it was thought necessary. If one looks at an inquiry into World Heritage areas that we have now, one could imagine that an inquiry into an area as large as Kakadu could take a very long time and a 12-month time limit might be appropriate. Then again, it might be possible to complete an inquiry into an area such as Lord Howe Island in a very much shorter time. I always envisaged that the Parliament, when it was setting up an inquiry, would look to that question each time it came up. Declaration of Urgency Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.38) —I declare the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill an urgent Bill and move: That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator J. J. Morris) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Button, J. N. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vallentine, J.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. Sibraa, K. W. Archer, B. R.Cook, P. F. S. Hill, R. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.44) —I move: That the time allotted for the consideration of the remainder of the Bill be as follows: For the remaining stages of the Bill-until 12.45 p.m. this day I also move: That the question be now put. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Morris) —The question is that the motion moved by the Minister be agreed to. Senator Puplick —Mr Temporary Chairman, are you putting the gag on the question of the allocation of time? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question that the question be now put is the motion before the Chair, and I have to put that motion without debate. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.45) —If Senator Gareth Evans is insisting on the gag, pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Chaney, I move: That so much of standing order 407b be suspended as would prevent the motion being debated without limitation of time and each Senator speaking for the time allocated by Standing Orders. It is really not surprising that a Bill to establish Richardson's greenshirts should be put through here on the basis of Evans's jackboots. That is precisely what is occurring on this occasion, aided and abetted by those alleged proponents of the democratic process, the Australian Democrats-sitting there as the fourth organised faction of the Australian Labor Party, once again seeking to truncate debate and demonstrating their view, along with Senator Vallentine, another great proponent of peace and harmony and doing things the right way, that this piece of legislation, which is important to the lives of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australian citizens, should be jackbooted through this place without proper opportunity for debate. It is no real wonder, I suppose, given the strife in which the Australian Labor Party finds itself at the moment. After the `Unslide' in New South Wales we now have Senator Richardson doing his very best to get out of all sorts of trouble. After all, it was Senator Richardson who was responsible in the first place for the execution of the then Minister for Sport, Mr John Brown, who was then responsible for making sure that Mick Young got his, and who was then responsible for making sure that Mr Unsworth did not continue as Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales. We now see on the front page of this morning's Australian, `Richardson warns Hawke to lift his game'. It is certainly true that an awful lot of people around here need to lift their game. Senator Richardson certainly needs to lift his game as far as his attitude towards World Heritage listing is concerned and as far as this piece of legislation is concerned. Senator Evans certainly needs to lift his game around here. He has come in here and not only proposed the guillotine on an important piece of legislation but also sought to have the guillotine arrangements themselves put on the basis of the gag. I ask the members of the Australian Democrats in particular, regardless of the guillotine motion: When did they welsh formally on their promise not to support gag motions? That is what they have now done. Not only have they supported the guillotine but also they are now supporting a gag motion. They are properly sitting where they actually belong in this chamber-on the other side with Senator Vallentine and all the other ratbags in this Parliament. It is no wonder that heavies such as Senator Reynolds and Senator Zakharov have been sent over there to make sure that they do not move-no wonder at all as far as this matter is concerned. Senator Collins —We just want to cut down the debate. Senator PUPLICK —Now we even have Senator Collins saying that he is about to go over there and add his substantial weight to the argument. As far as debate on this Bill is concerned, it is important to understand that lengthy and significant debate in this chamber is part of the process whereby the people of Australia can be kept informed of precisely what the Government is doing and, in particular, what the Government is doing to them. We had in the case of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill the opportunity to expose, through lengthy debate in this place, all the manifest faults of that piece of legislation, which led to sufficient public interest and pressure being generated for the Government to withdraw that legislation. We have called upon the Government to defer this legislation and to withdraw it. The reason that the Government does not want it debated any further is that it knows that the provisions in the legislation about inspectors, about inquiries and about penalties-$1,000 penalties and 12 months imprisonment penalties-is the sort of information that it does not want clearly on the public record, that it does not want people to know about. The Government's only urgency in respect of this piece of legislation is that it appears it wants it in the House of Representatives. Today's blue Daily Program for the House of Representatives already refers to the `Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill'. In other words, the House of Representatives Daily Program makes the situation quite clear because it says: Speaker to read message from the Senate transmitting Bill for concurrence. First reading. It then goes on: Second reading, by leave; committee; adoption of report; third reading, by leave. You know what that means, Mr Temporary Chairman. It means that as soon as this Bill is jackbooted through the Senate, it will be taken across King's Hall and gagged down the throat of the House of Representatives to ensure that it becomes legislation with a minimum amount of public debate and scrutiny. That is the purpose for which Senator Evans has introduced the guillotine motion and moved the gag on the guillotine motion itself. Senator Evans sits there smiling in the way he does about all these things, in the sure and certain knowledge that with the Australian Democrats in his pocket he has nothing to worry about on this matter. The only occasion on which one sees Senator Evans smiling in this place is when he is absolutely sure that his wholly-owned subsidiaries are behaving the way they should. These $1.50 Democrats-that is what they are; that is the smallest sum that one can get with 30 pieces of silver-have forgotten all their high principles about parliamentary scrutiny and debate and once again they are welshing on their responsibilities in this matter. There is absolutely no reason to do anything other than expose the role of the Australian Democrats in this debate. After all, they are beholden to the Australian Labor Party, not only for their preferences but in Western Australia they also get the ALP to pay for their how-to-vote cards. We know precisely what is being done on this particular occasion. There is no reason why the gag motion should have been moved on the question of the allocation of time. After all, if we had sought to debate the allocation of time for an hour or more we would simply have been removing that amount of time from the debate on the legislation itself. We would have been depriving ourselves of the time. However, there is a considerable principle as to whether Senator Evans, as Manager of Government Business, will now make a regular habit of the use of the gag motion when he has already secured passage of the declaration of the Bill as an urgent Bill and when he has already quite clearly indicated that he would have the Australian Democrats' support to provide for the 12.45 p.m. cut-off for the remainder of the stages of this debate. There is no need to proceed with the gag motion on this matter unless Senator Evans is signalling to us that that is the way in which he intends to proceed and the Democrats are also signalling that they propose to support gag motions whenever it happens to suit their convenience to close down debate. One thing that has been traditionally said about debates in this place is that, even given the use of the guillotine, the gag has not been a significant feature of the Senate's parliamentary procedure. It is to be clearly indicated that the Australian Democrats have now resiled from that point of view. It is no wonder that the Government wants to close down this debate. It is in a state of total disarray at the moment. It has not heeded the words of Senator McMullan that ALP members should all stop criticising each other and apportioning blame around the place. A whole series of people in New South Wales will undoubtedly be the next ones on the gravy train, looking for jobs. After all, this piece of legislation allows for the establishment of inspectors. There are about 11 former Ministers in New South Wales and a whole herd of backbenchers who would probably make extremely good inspectors under this legislation. They are certainly not fit to be employed for anything else and they are certainly only fit to be employed in the sorts of tactics that Senator Richardson has put together here. The gag motion also gives the Government the opportunity to avoid facing up to the substantial problems that it has within its own Party. In this morning's Australian Financial Review is an article headed `Labor at loggerheads on heritage' in which we find that Mr Eaton, apparently the Opposition spokesman on land management and forestry in Queensland and a member of the Australian Labor Party, has been writing to Senator Richardson. Indeed, by the look of it he has been writing to just about anyone capable of reading saying, amongst other things, that the claim made by the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) about the widespread consultation on this legislation is absolutely false. Mr Eaton is quoted as saying: Not once, to my knowledge, did the Federal Government seek advice or opinions from members of the Queensland ALP or Parliamentary Leader or Members of State Parliament . . . Probably the Government could not find which branch of the Labor Party in Queensland to ask. It certainly did not know that there were enough members of the Labor Party in Queensland to ask; and with the revolving door it probably did not know which leader's name to put on the letter! Mr Eaton questioned the credibility of the Hawke Government's previous claim that it was willing to negotiate with the Bjelke-Petersen Government on the issue of World Heritage listing. He said that if the listing were pushed through, based on the existing boundaries, it would severely embarrass the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Mr Eaton went on to urge Senator Richardson to adopt the Queensland Opposition's policy-the Labor Party's policy in Queensland-which is, after all, for controlled logging of the area. Mr Eaton said that the view which the Queensland Labor Party would take on this matter was precisely the same as that which the Opposition parties have been urging on the Government throughout. The article continues: Mr Eaton's letter, according to political sources, reflects the deep-rooted concern within the State ALP over the impact of Federal policies and issues on the party's fortunes in the north. I will tell honourable senators something: the Labor Party's fortunes in the north are pretty bleak as far as this matter is concerned. It is absolutely no wonder that across the whole of northern Australian there is a revulsion at the way in which the Australian Labor Party is behaving. That is probably the reason that Senator Jenkins has suddenly found this weird and wonderful idea of establishing another State across the whole of north Australia so that the Government can try to quarantine the problems. But honourable senators opposite will not get away with that any more than they will get away with putting a guillotine motion and then a gag motion in this chamber and then forcing through a piece of legislation which, as I quoted from the judgment of Mr Justice Deane in the High Court, substantially ignores the rights of individuals and which prejudices the livelihood of people not only in north Queensland but also in Tasmania and anybody else threatened by the establishment of the inquiries which are proposed under this legislation. No wonder the Government does not want this matter discussed and debated and no wonder it does not want the draconian provisions of this legislation clearly exposed to public scrutiny. It knows that when this happened with the Bill of Rights it was forced to back off. It was forced to withdraw that legislation because of the public pressure that was placed upon it. Senator McLean and his colleagues suddenly say that there is no need for lengthy and urgent debate. But when the Australia Card Bill was debated, Senator McLean was as anxious as anybody to keep it going and going for as long as possible and he complained at every attempt by the Government to close down that debate. This selective morality about what should and should not be debated is typical of the way in which these $1.50 Democrats behave in this chamber. It is no wonder that the Government wishes to truncate this debate as quickly as possible; it is no wonder that it wants to get it into the House of Representatives where, once again, brutal force of numbers will be used to ensure that there is not adequate debate on an important piece of legislation. I assure the Minister that, with the contingent notices of motion which are there, if he wants to spend 2 1/2 hours going through all of those, we could do so. We are not going to do that because we will get back to debating the clauses of this Bill that are available. I indicate to the Minister that if he is going to make a habit of the gag motion on these sorts of things, the contingent notices of motion on that Notice Paper will ensure that we will prevent the Government and its lackeys in the Australian Democrats from riding roughshod over the right of the Senate to debate in a proper and coherent fashion significant pieces of legislation that are important to the people of Australia. I am more than-- Government senators-Eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, zero! Senator PUPLICK —Missed again! You see, even on the occasion of its own jackbooting of legislation the Government could not get the numbers right. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(11.00) —After 10 hours of debate on the second reading of the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill, after 2 3/4 hours debate already at the committee stage of the Bill, with another 1 3/4 hours still to go at the committee stage of the Bill-if Senator Puplick shuts up and the Opposition does not waste any more time in dividing-and with 1 April as the date on which the Daintree will be decimated unless this Bill is passed through the House of Representatives today-after all those things and bearing those things in mind-I move: That the question be now put. Senator MacGibbon —On a point of order: My point of order is that standing order 407 be applied. That provides that the urgency motion is in two stages. The first motion must be put without debate but the second point, the time allotted for urgency, is debated for one hour with as many speakers as we like having 10 minutes each. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Morris) —Order! Senator Gareth Evans has moved the closure of the debate, and that is the question I shall put now. Question put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator J. J. Morris) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Button, J. N. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Vallentine, J.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Wood, W. R.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Sibraa, K. W. Archer, B. R.Haines, J. Hill, R. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Senator Puplick's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator J. J. Morris) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Aulich, T. G. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Burns, B. R. McLean, P. A.Button, J. N. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C.. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Wood, W. R.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Haines, J.Hill, R. M. Sibraa, K. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator Gareth Evans —I have moved that the question about the allotment of time until 12.45 be now put. Senator Puplick —I wish to raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I seek your ruling as to whether the motion that the question be now put is a competent motion to be put in regard to standing order 407b, which provides that on motions with regard to the allotment of time no debate should be allowed for more than one hour. In other words, there is a presumption that there will be debate on that matter. My point is whether it is within the standing order for the Minister to move the motion that the gag be now put on matters arising under standing order 407b. Senator Gareth Evans —Further to the point of order, I submit clearly that it is an outside time limit and that it is competent for the Senate in the ordinary way for debate on that motion, like any other, to be closed within the time frame involved. Senator MacGibbon —Further to the point of order, after a careful reading of standing order 407b, I submit that the latter part of it says explicitly that up to a period of one hour shall be allowed for debate on the motion of the Minister. I am surprised that a Minister who has some pretensions to an education in law should so falsify the word of Standing Orders that he should seek to mislead the Senate and the Parliament on such a fundamental and clear issue. The other point that supports my argument arises from standing order 281. It is presumably from that standing order that the Minister is trying to draw some strength or is clutching at straws. But no careful reading of standing order 281 allows an interpretation to be put that overrides the final stages of standing order 407b. I submit, Mr Temporary Chairman, that you have no option but to allow debate for up to one hour if we choose to exercise that right. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Morris) —Order! I do not accept that point of order. From custom and practice in the past a precedent has been set on this issue-namely, that the question moved by the Minister be put. I shall put that question. Question put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator B. C. Teague) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Button, J. N. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S.. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Vallentine, J.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Wood, W. R.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Panizza, J. H.Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. Haines, J. Archer, B. R.Hill, R. M. Sibraa, K. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Teague) —The question now is that the motion for the allotment of time be agreed to. Senator MacGibbon —On a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman, I formally move dissent from the ruling of the Chair. In speaking to that motion, I am very conscious of the shortage of time-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no ruling from the Chair. The honourable senator cannot move dissent from a ruling of the Chair when there is no ruling from the Chair. Senator MacGibbon —I understand that there was a question before the Chair, moved by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, that the motion be put. The Chair accepted that that was a valid motion, against my objections. I am moving dissent from your ruling on that point. Senator Robert Ray —On the same point of order: It is not in order for a senator, while the Temporary Chairman is in the middle of putting a motion, to take a point of order, which is not actually a point of order, and then move a motion. Any honourable senator who wants to move a motion must be recognised by the Chair. Mr Temporary Chairman, you did not recognise him on the point of moving a motion; you recognised him only on the basis that he was rising on a point of order. That cannot be used by a senator as a device simply to get the attention of the Chair and then to launch off in some other area. Mr Temporary Chairman, you were half-way through putting the question and I suggest that that process, having been begun, has to be completed. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —On the point of order: The Chair was putting to the Committee the question that the motion for the limitation of time be agreed to. Senator MacGibbon's point of order is seeking a dissent from a ruling of the Chair, but there is no ruling from the Chair. The matter before the Committee is that the question be agreed to. There is no point of order. The question is that the motion for the limitation of time be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Clause 5 (Identified property). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.24) —Proposed new section 3a (1) (a) (i) states: the property is subject to an inquiry established by a law of the Commonwealth whose purpose, or one of whose purposes, is to consider whether the property forms part of the cultural heritage or natural heritage; Does that mean the whole of the time of an inquiry before its final report as stated in proposed new section 3a (2) which deals with an inquiry's final report? The Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests, which was instigated by the Government, ordered that certain areas in Tasmania be allowed to be logged because their value was not recognised by that Commission. Does that mean that the area which is presently being logged will no longer be allowed to be logged on request? Proposed new section 3a (2) states: For the purposes of subparagraph (1) (a) (i), property shall be taken to be subject to an inquiry of the kind referred to in that subparagraph until the end of 42 days after the report, or the final report . . . Will the area that Mr Helsham allowed to be logged no longer be allowed to be logged while an inquiry is going on-as the Minister said, perhaps for 12 months or more-because a final report has not been presented? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.26) —The Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests had been asked to report by a certain date on some aspects of its inquiry. It did so. As I recall it, that included four plots that were within the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests area that were said to be not of sufficient value. I do not have the Commission's precise words with me, obviously. Under this Act, the Government would have 42 days to consider that report and make its intentions known. So protection for these areas would not have continued beyond that time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.27) —Is the Minister saying that we do not have to wait for the final report in this instance? The Helsham Commission of Inquiry could make an interim report and that report would be considered in the same way as a final report? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.27) —That is correct. In the setting up of any future inquiry, should any future inquiry be deemed to be necessary, no doubt that would be made clear in the legislation that set up the inquiry. In other words, if we wanted interim reports on particular parts we could have a time scale put into the Bill to make sure that that problem did not arise. Senator PARER(Queensland)(11.28) —I refer to clause 5 and the amendments to section 3 in the principal Act. Proposed new section 3a (3) provides: . . . whether before or after the commencement of this Act, as suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List provided for in paragraph 2 of the Article- that is, Article 11 of the World Heritage Convention- the property shall be taken to be subject to World Heritage List nomination from the time of its submission until the end of 7 days after the day on which the Committee informs, or first informs, Australia that it has included or decided not to include the whole or any part of the property in the list. I indicated during my speech in the second reading debate and when we were debating clause 1 yesterday that on three occasions the Minister, by implication, misled an international body in the nomination for the World Heritage listing. The implication is that agreement has been reached between the people who own the land and the Federal Government of Australia. I appreciate that nominations can be made only by the Federal Government, which is called the State by the World Heritage Committee. However, a critical part of World Heritage nomination is the ability to manage. Without the agreement of the Queensland State Government the Federal Government will not be able adequately to manage the property. Yet, on three occasions, the Minister has signed a document which implies that he has reached agreement with the Queensland Government. I have mentioned that there is a good possibility that the World Heritage Committee will come back and say, `We will not agree to it at this stage', because it knows that the thing cannot be managed without agreement. I understand that during the debate yesterday Senator Richardson gave a hint of what he means by that. His words were `a joint authority of the Australian and Queensland Governments is envisaged to assume responsibility for the administration of the property'. First, I should like to ask the Minister why he misled an international organisation? That is an embarrassment to every Australian. Secondly, was the Minister's implication yesterday that he would agree to pay compensation to individuals only if the Queensland Government agreed to what he was doing? In other words, he was using a blackmailing technique on the Queensland Government, which would affect the lives of many individuals in far north Queensland. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.31) —I am not sure what the last question had to do with proposed section 3a (3). However, to answer it, the question of compensation has nothing to do with blackmail. What I am saying is that it will not be possible to deliver some of the compensation without the cooperation of the Queensland Government. I shall give some examples. If for instance, as part of the package, I was to come up with an idea for greatly increased plantation forestry on the tablelands, it may well be that the Government would need to negotiate with the Queensland Government for crown land for that purpose, or alternatively to purchase private land for that purpose. It would be impossible, for instance, to get an allocation of hoop pine resource to the Ravenshoe mill without the cooperation of the Queensland Government, because the hoop pine resource is owned by the Queensland Government. So, it has nothing to do with blackmail. If I have the money to provide compensation and jobs, it will in some cases, and probably in most cases, require the cooperation of the Queensland Government for me to hand over the money. That is why I said that. It has nothing to do with blackmail; it is a matter of logistics. With regard to the continuing question of whether I have misled Parliament, the people, and indeed the world, I think we have to consider the actual words I used. I should have thought that the phrase `it is envisaged' does not mean `it has been done'-unless the Oxford English Dictionary has a new meaning of `envisaged' that has not been brought to my attention. Senator PARER(Queensland)(11.32) —I think the Minister is playing with words. He has made an application to an international organisation. Surely he would agree that from his choice of words that organisation would assume that ready agreement has been reached with the Queensland Government. It is clear that that has not happened and that the Minister has not even entered into decent discussions with the Queensland Government-notwithstanding the telex to the Prime Minister of Australia from the Premier of Queensland. An international organisation, on reading the words `it is envisaged', could be excused for thinking that agreement had been reached and the area could be managed. The Minister would have to agree that without the agreement of the Queensland Government, he cannot adequately manage that area. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.32) —Without the agreement of the Queensland Government it may not be possible to do all with management that I would like. However, to say that I could not manage the area is simply not true. With regard to Senator Parer's other comments, it must be remembered that when the Great Barrier Reef was nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List there was no management agreement in place. The Government of the day said that it was envisaged that it would obtain agreement, and it did. Senator PARER(Queensland)(11.33) —I should like to correct that. I have in front of me the nomination of the Great Barrier Reef to the World Heritage List. What the Minister said is quite incorrect. Agreement was reached. The Minister should read the management section. Senator Richardson —There was no management plan. Senator PARER —I am sorry, Senator Richardson, but you are wrong. The relevant section says quite clearly that it will be managed in cooperation with the State Government. I do not have it in front of me, but it is here. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.33) —I would not be surprised if the nomination said that it would be managed with the cooperation of the State Government. That is what the Federal Government expected and intended at the time. That is what I expect and intend now. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.34) —I should like the Minister to confirm a number of matters in proposed section 3b. First, will a judge of the Family Court of Australia, being a court created by Parliament, be an eligible judge for the purposes of this section? Secondly, does the Minister propose to write to all members of the judiciary or only selected members of the judiciary to ask whether they will consent in writing to be nominated by the Minister for the purposes of this Act; or will the Minister circularise all judges and ask them to volunteer? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.35) —I have not yet decided on what course of action to take in that respect. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.35) —Will the Minister confirm my understanding that a judge of the Family Court of Australia, if he or she consents in writing to being nominated by the Minister, will be an eligible judge for the purposes of this section? Senator Richardson —Yes. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.36) —Will the Minister say what his preference is? The public servants beside him are shaking their heads and saying that he has not yet decided. Cannot the Minister make the decision as to whether he will invite all judges to be nominated, or only those judges he particularly chooses? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.36) —It is probable that the first action to be taken will be for me to ask the Attorney-General to approach the chief judges of the courts in question. Senator Walters —Does the Minister mean that the decision rests not with him but with the Attorney-General? That is not really what the legislation says. Senator RICHARDSON —It is a question of obtaining the consent of the judges. I am not in such an exalted legal position that I consider myself to be the best person to go forth and obtain those consents. Consequently, it would be appropriate to use the Minister in charge of such matters, the Attorney-General. He is the logical person for me to approach. I shall discuss with him the best way of approaching the judges and obtaining their consents. Acting on the Attorney's advice, I will proceed. If the Attorney thought it best for him to approach the judges, it would be fine if he did. If he thought it best that I make the approach, I would. If he thought it best that the chief judges of the courts in question should do it, that is what would happen. I shall seek the advice of the Attorney-General. I do not believe there is anything improper or unusual in doing that. Senator Walters —Will the Minister inform the Senate of the decision that is made: whether he intends to approach all judges, or only those judges he chooses, or whether the Attorney-General will approach all judges? Senator RICHARDSON —As soon as I have had discussions with the Attorney-General I shall inform the Senate. Lest I be accused of misleading the Senate, I should add the rider that I have no doubt that the Attorney-General will wish to consult the chief judges of the courts in question and report back to me. So, I may not reply to the Senate as soon as I have talked to the Attorney-General; rather, as soon as he has completed the inquiries that he considers to be necessary, and reports back to me, then I shall inform the Senate. Clause agreed to. Clause 6 agreed to. Clause 7 (Entry and search etc.). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.39) —I have considerable problems with the provisions on entry and search. As the clause stands, an inspector may go onto private property at any time of the day or night. The only restriction that the inspector has is that he cannot enter a person's home. He can stop and search a vehicle; he can walk around a property, take photographs, record occurrences in an eligible place, and examine and measure an eligible thing. Indeed, he can enter and search that property at will. The Minister is well aware that his party has a different philosophy from the Opposition regarding private property. I am quite well aware that he realises this; I am quite well aware that the Opposition realises this. The Opposition believes that the civil liberties of the individual are paramount. The Government believes that the interests of the community far outweigh the civil liberties of the individual. As verification of that, I would like to quote from a speech made by Dr Blewett to the South Australian Labor Party conference in June 1986 when he said: Let me say as a socialist that it is the interests of the community that should come before the individual right . . . we shouldn't get too hung up as socialists on privacy because privacy, in many ways, is a bourgeois right that is very much associated with the right to private property. It is very clear from that what the Labor Party's philosophy is. Notwithstanding that, I say that the Minister is out of touch-as he would agree-with the common people if he believes that at any time of the night or day an inspector, with no special qualifications and no special or necessary training-nothing at all except an identity card or badge given to him by the Minister-can enter and search private property. This person will be able to stop vehicles at any time of the night or day. Most of this inspecting will be done in isolated areas. At any time of the night or day such an inspector can, if he believes there is justification for his doing so carry out such investigations, even without a warrant. I believe that the Minister has overstepped the mark. I would like the Minister to explain to me why it is that he proposes to allow a stranger to enter private property without the knowledge or consent of its owner; why he would allow a stranger to wave down and stop a vehicle and demand to search that vehicle. What justification can the Minister possibly have for allowing such things to take place? Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.43) —I will raise some of the same points raised by Senator Walters in the course of my contribution; so the Minister might find it convenient to reply at the one time to all of those points. Clause 7 of the Bill provides, in fact, for quite distinct and separate issues. Proposed new section 17 deals with compensation, section 17A with the power of inspectors, section 17B with penalties and section 17C with confidentiality. I will refer briefly to compensation and make two points about that. My first point relates to remarks made by Senator Collins in an earlier debate on 18 March. Having looked at Senator Collins's interpretation of compensation apropos the Northern Territory I must say that I would certainly want to qualify my earlier remarks about compensation arrangements in the Northern Territory. I think in fact that Senator Collins is correct in his comments about compensation in the Northern Territory in regard to acquisition. To that extent I stand corrected by Senator Collins in regard to that particular matter. However, the issue of compensation is broader than one of simple acquisition. It goes very much to the question of what I think lawyers call injurious affection in terms of the value of property which, in fact, is affected by the whole procedure when it is not actually acquired. I believe that the Minister ought to explain whether the Commonwealth accepts any liability for any potential loss which arises, in terms of the value of properties, as a result of World Heritage listing in cases where, in fact, they are not actually acquired. That is the first point. My second point is whether the Minister can explain why it has been thought necessary to provide such large maximum penalties under section 17B, namely, a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for 12 months or both. It really seems to me that if the Minister is serious about attempting only to gather information and not attempting to frighten people he would not be introducing such draconian legislation. A penalty as high as $1,000 or imprisonment for 12 months or both is absolutely outrageous, even if it is a stated maximum penalty. In that respect I draw the Minister's attention to representations, which I think he will have already received, from the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, which deal with the question of penalties. I think that the Minister would certainly accept the Council as an organisation which has been quite fearless whether in dealing with the Federal Government or the Queensland Government. The Council in its representations has stated that those fines and penalties are excessive and should be reduced. In fact, it suggests a much lower penalty regime. The third area on which I seek the Minister's comments relates to the confidentiality provisions of section 17c. I would like to know whether section 17c (2) is to be read as meaning, in effect, that the Secretary to the Department may in fact authorise the disclosure of information to any officer of the Department or, indeed, whether it goes beyond the disclosure of information just to people in his Department. For instance, I would like to know whether the Secretary would be able to authorise the disclosure of information to, for example, an officer of the Attorney-General's Department or whether the disclosure is limited only to officers of the Department for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Finally, I come to the search and entry matters raised by Senator Walters. If one were simply to take this part of the Bill on face value one would perhaps be drawn to the conclusion that there was some protection offered in this matter, namely, that an inspector would have to have reasonable grounds and, indeed, a warrant for search and entry. Of course, that is not the case. Section 17a (4) (c) (ii) provides that: The entry is made in circumstances of such seriousness and urgency as to require and justify immediate entry without the consent of the person in charge or the authority of a warrant issued under subsection (5). It really seems to me that what the Government has attempted to do here is to pad around an open-ended right of nominated inspectors to enter and do the various things which are nominated in section 17a (2)-that is, to `enter and search', `take photographs and record occurrences', `inspect, examine and take photographs and measurements of an eligible thing'. In fact, at the end of the day that clause is totally open-ended. For all of the padding about reasonable grounds and all of the padding about warrants there lies in the centre of that particular arrangement the right of an inspector to enter a dwelling, even without reasonable grounds, if he believes the matter is of such seriousness and urgency as to require him to do certain things, without warrant or, more to the point, without the consent of the person concerned. Again, I draw the Minister's attention to the representations he has received from the Council for Civil Liberties which have called for stricter safeguards in regard to these new search powers, which say that there should be a ground of reasonable necessity, that there ought to be a time limit on a warrant of no more than one month and that warrants exercised at night should be sought only where absolutely necessary and on rare occasions and that inspectors should be required to tape-record any relevant conversations. It goes on to demonstrate the extent to which, in a civil liberties sense, this is an outrage. The other day I spoke about the balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of a government to take the steps it believes are necessary for the protection of the natural environment. There is a quintessential point about all this because it says that at the end of the day, it is the power of an individual in everything except his own home. The clause does not say `his own home'; it says `a dwelling house'. It does not say anything else. It does not say that an inspector cannot enter a caravan or a structure which is not a dwelling house. It is quite specific. It does not say `a dwelling' or `a place of residence'; it says, `a dwelling house'. Presumably, that means something in law. A house, presumably, means precisely that. There are certain dwelling places which are not houses. For instance, if a timber worker lives in a shack in the bush, is that shack classed as a dwelling house? Senator Richardson —Yes. Senator PUPLICK —The Minister says that it is a dwelling house. If a person lives in a tent, is that a dwelling house? Senator Richardson —Probably. Senator PUPLICK —The Minister says, `Probably'. I am afraid, Minister, that `probably' is not good enough. The clause could easily have said `a dwelling' but, no, it is specific; it says `a dwelling house'. Presumably, that has a particular meaning and a particular purpose. If it does not, the word `house' should be taken out, leaving the clause with the word `dwelling'. At least that would increase marginally the right of some people. Senator Tambling —What about Aboriginals and their residences? Senator PUPLICK —My colleague Senator Tambling is quite correct in drawing my attention to this, prompting me to ask-undoubtedly Senator Collins would be able to tell us about this-are all places in which Aboriginals reside dwelling houses, or would we not use the term `house' for some of the accommodation in which Aboriginal people dwell and reside on a permanent basis? Senator Walters —What about caravans? Senator PUPLICK —Senator Walters asks whether a caravan is a dwelling house for the purpose of this proposed section. The Minister has a responsibility to address those matters, in particular whether the whole thing is as open-ended as the legislation, on its face, clearly indicates that it is; whether a `dwelling house' has the meaning which I have ascribed to it, and whether the officers of the Department are officers of the Department only for which the Minister is responsible or whether there are other officers in other departments to whom information can be given. Presumably, they would have to be given access to the information if prosecutions were to be launched under this proposed section. Perhaps the Minister will explain to me whether, if a prosecution is to be launched, it means that the material in the possession of the Secretary to his Department, gathered as a result of the work of the inspectors, is not to be made available to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General's Department for the purpose of advising on the question of a prosecution. If that is so, it is an absolute nonsense. But that is what sub-section (2) of proposed section 17c says. Having raised those matters, I shall await the Minister's response. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.53) —I want to pursue one or two of the points which have been made already by Senator Walters and Senator Puplick. In doing so, I refer the Minister to the extraordinarily wide manner in which the Bill is drawn in the area which the Committee is discussing. The power of the corps of inspectors-I think that they are to be called Richardson's greenshirts-are defined under the entry and search provisions of this clause of the Bill. I note that, under what will be section 17a (2) of the amended Act, an inspector may, for an eligible purpose-I emphasise the words `eligible purpose'-do a number of things. He may: (a) enter and search an eligible place; (b) take photographs and record occurrences in an eligible place; and- the occurrences are completely undefined- (c) inspect, examine and take photographs and measurements of an eligible thing. Again, I emphasise the words `eligible thing'. Later, under sub-section (10) of what will be section 17a of the amended Act, the terms `eligible purpose' and `eligible thing' are defined. It says: `eligible purpose' means the purpose of: . . . . (b) obtaining information that may be relevant to the making of a Proclamation, or a regulation, under this Act; The words `that may be relevant' are extraordinarily wide. Yet, for the purpose of obtaining information that may be relevant, an inspector appointed under the amended Act will have extremely wide powers to enter and search, to take photographs and record occurrences and to inspect, examine and take photographs and measurements of an eligible thing. `Eligible thing'-the other term defined in sub-section 10 of proposed section 17a-means anything prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of the definition. Senator Collins —It is very common. Senator STONE —It may be a very common way of describing these things, but the point is that it does not ordinarily occur within the context of an Act which appoints a corps of inspectors who will have these extraordinarily wide and draconian powers to enter upon people's property-not their dwelling house; however that may be defined-and to search, enter, take photographs, examine, measure, et cetera. That is the point. Of course it is a drafting provision. What I point out is that it is a drafting provision in a particular context. I hope that Senator Collins was not suggesting, by way of interjection, that people in the Northern Territory will be in any way relaxed about the possible consequences of this provision for people operating there who may be affected by it. Senator Collins —People in the Territory can have their things seized under about 20 Acts now. Senator Richardson —Of course they can. Senator STONE —I am interested to hear that Senator Collins and the Minister imply, by way of interjection-I do not want to put it more strongly than that-that they are perfectly relaxed about the way in which such powers will be open to abuse by inspectors appointed under the Act. Senator Collins —I am not saying that. Senator STONE —I hope that he is not saying that. I would be surprised if he were. What I am saying to the Minister is that, given the extremely wide drafting and the context in which that drafting occurs, such powers will be available. As the committee is perfectly well aware, once those powers are available they are open to be used and almost certainly will be used. That is a matter of very serious concern. I will not dwell further on that point because I can seen that the Minister will not shift his position, notwithstanding that I predict that this Bill will bring more opprobrium on the Minister's own head and on that of this Government than any other piece of legislation which has been introduced, even by this Government, in the last five years. The Minister may or may not want to react to that comment. I am not seeking a reaction; I am simply stating a view. Finally, I turn to the provisions in the Bill about confidentiality; not because I object to the provisions about confidentiality-on the contrary, I strongly support those provisions-but because they flag and highlight, again, the extraordinarily intrusive powers which the Bill will provide to an inspectorate appointed by a political person-a Minister of the Crown. I make it clear that I am not referring, as I did in my earlier intervention before we were placed under the guillotine, to the present Minister; I am referring to a Minister of the Crown, at some time or other, who will have, because of the powers accorded to him by the Bill, should it be enacted, powers which will enable his inspectors to seek and obtain information from persons or corporations affected by the Bill and who will then, notwithstanding the confidentiality provisions of the Bill, be empowered to provide that information to the Minister. What the Minister then does with it is up to the Minister. We saw in the House of Representatives only yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) making use of information for personnel files from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to blacken the name of an ex-ambassador of Australia who has had the temerity to write a book in which he criticises the Minister. I do not have any brief for the particular ex-Foreign Affairs official concerned-Dr James Cumes. In my previous capacity I happen to have disagreed on many occasions with Dr Cumes's views on foreign economic policy issues. But I believe that the action of the Minister in having his minions provide him, from the recesses of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade personnel section, with intimate details relating to what was said about the career of Dr Cumes by a particular selection committee which sat upon an application that Dr Cumes was making for a job and which the-- Senator Richardson —Come back to the Bill. Senator STONE —I will come back to the clause. But I am making a point in relation to this clause of the Bill which sets down the kind of abuse of process which we saw in the House of Representatives yesterday in the case that I have just cited and which will be open to any future Minister, including this one. The process can be employed in this instance and information can be gathered by Richardson's greenshirts and conveyed to the Minister without any fear of punishment, as a result of the indemnification given to them by this clause of the Bill. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.02) —I address a question to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) in respect of the compensation clause. Many sawmilling companies in north Queensland that will be forced to close down within the next two or three weeks, or maybe within a month or so-and I ask the Minister to give me his attention because this is a fairly significant problem that will have to be faced by the sawmillers-will have to pay off their staff. They will have to meet their obligations in respect of holiday pay, long service pay, sick pay and all sorts of other payments. This is going to place many of the sawmills in a financially embarrassing position. They will have to seek either accommodation from their banks or some other type of funding arrangement. I understand that the Minister will be paying compensation to the sawmills. But, before compensation comes through, quite an amount of money will be required to meet the sawmillers' commitments to pay the workers out. I understand from inquiries that I have had from north Queensland that some type of fund needs to be set up by the Minister from which sawmillers can draw money to meet their commitments to their workers as they lose their jobs. Will the Minister's Government provide money for a compensation fund from which the sawmill proprietors can meet their commitments before they are compensated by the Government? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.04) —I will be very brief. I want to raise a couple of matters with the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson). Senator Puplick has referred to the penalties under this Bill. As I indicated earlier, one of the Minister's greenshirts in an isolated area could be told that he should hand in his identity card because, perhaps, he has committed some offence. An inspector who does not hand in his ID card will be liable, under this legislation, to a penalty of only $100. Let us suppose that an inspector has accosted a woman and has not handed in his card. On a lonely road at 2 a.m.-I drew this analogy during my speech in the second reading debate-he may demand entry to a vehicle which is being driven by a woman. If the woman does not open the door of her car she is liable to be fined a maximum of $1,000. Meanwhile, the inspector is subject to a maximum penalty of only $100. How does the Minister equate these two penalties? The whole thing is ridiculous. The only other brief comment I would make relates to the clause on confidentiality which was debated by Senator Stone and Senator Puplick. This Government does not have a clue about privacy. Indeed, it believes that privacy is a bourgeois right. The Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett, said that we should not get too hung up as socialists on privacy because privacy in many ways is a bourgeois right which is associated with the right to private property. They do not know what privacy means. On four separate occasions Minister Blewett's Department has been caught giving out private information on individual doctors. I ask Senator Richardson whether the buck will stop with him as regards confidentiality in this Bill. It certainly does not stop with the Minister for Community Services and Health. Will Senator Richardson take responsibility for any breach by his Department of the confidentiality clause of this Bill? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(12.07) —There are quite a number of things to answer. I hope that I get to all of them. I am sure that honourable senators opposite will remind me if I do not. A number of honourable senators have raised the question of draconian power. I thought that I had covered this yesterday. I thought that I had put into perspective yesterday how little power in fact inspectors under this legislation get in comparison with the powers given under an enormous number of other pieces of legislation-not only Commonwealth legislation but, more importantly, legislation in a number of States. I referred yesterday, but I want to mention it again, to the Queensland Government's National Parks and Wildlife Act. Section 56 of that Act gives the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, his officers and employees, the power to enter any land or waters at any time, without previous notice, without warrant, to inspect forest products or for any national park purpose. This Bill goes nowhere near the sort of power that the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service has already. I mentioned yesterday in regard to the beloved Tasmania of Senator Walters just how much further Tasmanian Acts go than the legislation before us. In particular, the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Act gives authorised officers the power to seize anything-that is what it says in the Act-on reasonable grounds suspected of being taken contrary to the provisions of the Act. It gives them the power to search any premises, including private homes and vehicles. As I mentioned, it gives them the power of arrest without warrant even for failure to give full name and address. That is what I call draconian legislation. I wonder just how often Senator Walters has attempted to undo that legislation in her home State? I suspect never, because she could not care less. But when she comes here, she stands up and screams about the legislation. When I spoke yesterday I referred to a number of Acts. I mentioned bananas in relation to Western Australia. I want to go further than bananas today. I want to go through chooks and move on to artificial breeding. This is important stuff. If one looks at the powers of veterinary surgeons of the State Department of Agriculture in Western Australia, one sees that they are able to enter and inspect licensed premises at any time. Let me read these deep and meaningful words to honourable senators: They can enter and inspect any licensed premises and examine any semen or ova found on the premises. That is a bit of a worry, but that sort of act is commonplace around the country. As far as this `reasonable time' argument is concerned, let us look at chooks in Western Australia. Under the Poultry Industry (Trust Fund) Act 1948, they must make entry at a reasonable time. That is the only place where I could find this provision, but that is all right because in the premises where chooks are kept, the lights are on all day. Time does not mean a lot to the chooks; they do not know when night and day have come and gone. The references to these Acts, not to mention the Carnarvon Banana Industry (Compensation Trust Fund) Act 1961, to which I referred yesterday, suggest that there are literally hundreds of such Acts right around the country which give inspectors of all kinds much more power than this Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 would ever dream of doing. In fact, I can assure Senator Walters that the next time a badge-flashing person accosts her in her vehicle in a remote place it will not be one of Richardson's greenshirts; it will be any one of a number of officers who have been given such powers by the Tasmanian authorities. In fact, as I understand it, they are dressed in brown shirts, which I cannot really object to although there may be a matter of aesthetics involved. I would have thought that Senator Walters might have complained before this about the truly draconian powers that those people have-powers which I have not sought for inspectors in this Bill. I try to stay away from draconian powers and that has always been the Australian Labor Party's position. In fact, this Bill is a classic example of just how far I have gone to make sure that draconian powers are not placed in legislation. There is nothing unusual about giving inspectors the power to have a look. In this case if they do not have a warrant and do not have consent to have a look, then any act that they take as a matter of judgment is obviously testable in a court. I have no doubt that there are many who would test it in a court if they thought an inspector was being unreasonable. One might ask: `Why should they have a look at all?'. We are attempting to ensure that `eligible things' are not being removed from premises, but that will be pretty hard to do if an inspector does not have the power to have a look and make sure that he or she knows what is on the premises. This is not draconian; it is entirely reasonable. As honourable senators will be aware, logging can sometimes be difficult to detect from the air. If it was going on and was against the Act, then the difficulty would be that there could be any number of access routes into a forest area. It will be pretty hard to check on the timber once it has gone and so it may well be necessary for an inspector to go to a mill and have a look to see if there is any identifiable material. Often under a licence in those forests-Senator Boswell is the expert on this-there are marked trees and it will not be too hard to identify an area. If those markings are not there, then perhaps the Commonwealth will have some reason to act. We have heard a lot about the penalties. The $1,000 and 12-month imprisonment penalties are standard across the whole welter and gamut of Commonwealth and State legislation. There is nothing at all unusual in them. I have not noticed complaints about them in the past. These penalties are included in the Sea Installation Act and the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act, but they have created no furore or discussion in this place. No one seems to complain when these provisions are placed in other Acts, yet in this legislation they are regarded as draconian and terrible. The reality is that they are normal provisions. Senator Boswell and Senator Puplick asked some questions about compensation. Before these amendments the Commonwealth had no legal liability for the compensation of the people to whom Senator Boswell referred and it does not have it now. And yet the Commonwealth provided considerable compensation to Tasmania in the Franklin Dam case. I am about to present to the Cabinet a submission for compensation for north Queensland. Obviously I am not in a position to go through what is in that submission now; that will have to wait until I have been to Cabinet. I will then announce it quickly, not only to Senator Boswell but also to the people of north Queensland. Details will be known within the next few weeks so there will not be a long wait. I will be delighted once it is announced because it is something that we have been working hard on for a long time. The terms under which compensation will be given in the Act only refer to times when the actions of the Commonwealth amount to acquisition. Hopefully we will not see too much of that. We have not yet attempted, and I am not in the process of attempting, to do anything of that nature. Nonetheless, if it does occur, the Act greatly simplifies the procedures and makes it easier for anyone so affected. So I do not think that section is a problem. Senator Puplick raised an interesting point about `dwelling house'. Obviously, the Government intends to treat `dwelling house' and `dwelling' in the same way. One would imagine that that could be done administratively. I do not see that it is necessary to put it in the Bill. It is a term that has been used in other legislation; this is not the only legislation that uses it. The Oxford Dictionary refers to a dwelling house as something used as a residence, not an office. That does not necessarily help us with the question of tents and caravans and when dealing with it administratively we will have to make sure that those questions are dealt with properly. They are not questions which will be greatly discussed in the coming months. There are probably matters of greater importance with which we must deal. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(12.18) —I will not keep the Senate very long. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) skipped over the question of compensation very quickly. He told us that there would be special compensation for Queensland. However, as I pointed out last night in this chamber, I am worried that the Shark Bay area and the Kimberleys are on the hit list. It will not be long before the people in those areas are asked to move. The Minister skipped over that very conveniently. Senator Puplick asked about the viability of properties that were partly taken over. I point out that if the Government pays the market values for these properties the owners will have to move. They may find that there are no other suitable places on the market to which they can move. People will not take the market price if they are being shifted so that the Government can take over their properties. There are a lot of problems associated with this. If a pastoralist has to move to a completely new area, he has to learn about that area. That could be five or 10 years down the track. I ask the Minister to look at those questions because he very conveniently skipped over them. Unfortunately, by moving to gag us the Australian Democrats did not help us to bring all this out. They will answer for that in due course when we come to an election. That is all I want to say. I shall let Senator Puplick have the rest of the time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.20) —I also want an answer from the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) about transfer of information to public servants other than those in his own Department. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(12.20) —So far as transfer of information is concerned, I did not answer that question before and I apologise. I was not trying to duck the question. I had a number of things to answer and I forgot. At the present time this legislation will provide penalties for an inspector who publishes information-in the true sense of the word `publish'-to anyone apart from me, the Secretary to the Department or officers of the Department. I should say `the Minister'; it might not be me. Things do change in this world. Proposed new section 17c (3) of the legislation will provide that the Minister, Secretary or the officers can only pass on information for the purposes of the Act. One would imagine that if one is passing on information for the purposes of the Act it would be to the Attorney-General's Department for a prosecution. That is certainly not prevented. That is the only circumstance when I can pass on that information. I hope that answers Senator Puplick's question. I want to say a couple of things about Senator Panizza's remarks. It is not a matter of carefully or quickly skipping over any discussion of compensation. The reason I am not going into a long discussion on compensation is that it has nothing whatever to do with the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill. This is the Bill we are addressing; this is the Bill we are trying to get through. The questions the honourable senator is asking do not go to it. I thought I had explained reasonably clearly where this Bill refers to compensation and why. I did not skip over that. Senator Panizza is asking questions way outside the ambit of the Bill. The other point, which I know has been made by honourable senators in the second reading debate and in the two-hour debate on clause 1 last night, is this so-called hit list, all these areas that are supposedly lining up for inclusion on the World Heritage List. At the present time only two areas are under any sort of active consideration. One is Shark Bay in Western Australia. So far as I am aware, the active consideration has meant a meeting with the Western Australian Minister at which he said the Western Australian Government at that point in time had not been able to resolve the question of pastoral leases and therefore it did not want me to proceed with the nomination at this point. I have not done so. In fact, I await that Government's advice. Senator Puplick —One law for your mates in the west and another law for your mates in Queensland. Senator RICHARDSON —The difference with the people in that Government in Western Australia is that they are prepared to talk about these things. That is the big difference. The Government is not looking at any proposal for the Kimberleys-none whatsoever. There is a suggestion that Bungle Bungle might be an appropriate area. It is no more than a suggestion at the moment; it is not under active consideration. The only other possibility in the country that I have been requested to look at is an alpine park that would straddle New South Wales and Victoria, to see whether such a park would be suitable for inclusion on the list. I have already said that that would have to be carefully looked at because I am not certain yet that the area is of sufficient quality. There just is not a hit list beyond that. Senator Panizza —The ACF's hit list. Senator RICHARDSON —That is not mine; it is not the Government's. I cannot stop any citizen from wanting the whole of Australia put on the World Heritage List; some do. However, that is not my agenda. I have just told the honourable senator honestly what the Government's agenda is. If that agenda changes, I am more than happy to make it public because there is no way we will be creeping up on anyone with a World Heritage nomination. Honourable senators will all hear about it long before it happens. Clause agreed to. Clauses 8 and 9-by leave-taken together. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.25) —May I just make it clear in relation to clause 7 that I did not divide the Committee but the Opposition voted against, and wants it known that it voted against, that clause. I shall speak very briefly on clauses 8 and 9 because I want to spend some time on clauses 10 and 11. We believe clauses 8 and 9 are indicative of the Government seeking to do two things: firstly, to give retrospective justification to acts it has undertaken which perhaps it should not have undertaken without the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 being strictly followed on all matters the Commonwealth has undertaken. In effect, the Commonwealth is asserting that that Act did not ever apply to World Heritage listed properties. No evidence has been put forward which would in any sense justify that assertion. The second thing I say about clauses 8 and 9 is that they clearly free the Government from an obligation to act in accordance with the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. So, for instance, if Senator Richardson's unlamented predecessor, Mr Brown, had wanted to go ahead with the monorail at Ayers Rock, he would not have had to conform with the procedures laid down under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act for a proper evaluation of that because he would have had the power to act as Minister and to act unilaterally. I think the insertion of clauses 8 and 9 into this legislation-which again I formally notify the Committee the Opposition will vote against but will not take to a division because of time restraints-is just an indication of how the Government is prepared to play fast and loose with its own environmental legislation when it suits ministerial purposes. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.28) —I want to address a question to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson). I ask the Minister again when he will provide the Senate with the $300,000 worth of environmental impact studies? We have been waiting for this for some time. Could the Minister explain why he is not prepared to present to Parliament the $300,000 worth of environmental impact studies paid for by the taxpayer? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(12.28) —This may be the seventh or eighth time I have answered this question. The Government has those reports under consideration and they will be released very shortly. There is no problem with that. I have been saying that for a long time. This amending Bill will not prevent the Minister from ordering an inquiry into the environmental effects of a monorail at Ayers Rock. I would not be a party to any attempt to preclude that being done. Senator Puplick —We are not always going to have a person of your sensitivity, are we? Senator RICHARDSON —I shall not comment on that. Modesty forbids and prevents. It is the case that it should not be thought that to achieve the environmental protection of an area, which the Government does by activating the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, that the other Act should be enacted as well. This simply clears that up. The Commonwealth will always live up to its obligations to protect the environment. In fact, listing for World Heritage is perhaps the ultimate test of protecting our environment. That is what one does when one acts under that Bill. In the case of the monorail at Uluru, and indeed the other one from Darwin down to Cooinda which I have also heard recently, I do not think there would be much doubt that there would be an environmental impact study. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 10 and 11-by leave-taken together. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.32) —This is a perfect opportunity to draw attention to the way in which the Government has proceeded in regard to north Queensland. It appears that the Labor Government, like everything else it touches, is determined to corrupt even the processes of World Heritage listing and the scientific principles upon which such listing is supposed to proceed after proper evaluation of the nominations in question. Evidence from the Australian Mission to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) raises two fundamentally disturbing questions relating to World Heritage listing of both Kakadu Stage 2 and the north Queensland wet tropical rainforests. A telex from UNESCO Ambassador Mott to Senator Richardson blows the whistle on the Federal Labor Government. In his telex of December 1987, Ambassador Mott admits-and I quote from the telex: IUCN in fact has never visited Kakadu officially, not even in 1981 when Stage I was listed and certainly not for Stage II . . . The procedures for World Heritage listing are supposed to include an evaluation of proposed nominations by either the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in the case of nominated natural sites, or the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) when the nomination involves built areas. Such an evaluation by the relevant `expert' group attached to the World Heritage Committee and UNESCO is supposed to be presented to the World Heritage Bureau in committee before the site is accepted for inscription on the World Heritage List. The formal operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention issued by the World Heritage Committee in January 1987 provide in what are called `Guidelines for the Evaluation and Examination of Nominations' that-and I quote clause 47 (b): . . . the manner of the professional evaluation carried out by ICOMOS and IUCN should be fully described when each nomination is presented. The guidelines also require the IUCN to comment on such matters as `the integrity and future management of each property recommended' for possible inclusion. That is a quotation from section 47(d). It is clear that this procedure is not followed in relation to Kakadu Stage I. Mott's telex states: There was . . . no IUCN report on Kakadu, a fact which the Americans, the only delegation on the Committee unhelpful to our cause, pursued at length in questioning . . . I find it amazing that Ambassador Mott describes the American delegation-one of the most genuinely environmentally conscious national delegations-as unhelpful. The reason that it was was that the nomination in question was not accompanied by the required scientific data in support of it, nor were the proper and normal procedures being followed by the Australian Government and its delegation. It appears that the Government is anxious to avoid repetition of this saga, so it is putting in place a scheme designed to fix the umpire. Mr James Thorsell of Canada is expected to lead an IUCN team to Australia later this year to evaluate the north Queensland wet tropical rainforests nomination. Thorsell is a respected figure in the international conservation movement and is quite capable of making up his own mind on the subject objectively. However, Mott's telex advises Senator Richardson: For Queensland it is desirable that Thorsell visit and he be well looked after. What exactly does that `well looked after' mean? By whom and for what purpose? Mott's telex goes on: It would also help if Canberra Ambassadors of World Heritage Committee member states could be taken to the forests and shown around. In other words, Ambassador Mott urges the Minister to provide junkets to the Queensland forests to convince foreign ambassadors to lean on their World Heritage Committee representatives to support the Government's nomination for reasons which have nothing to do with the processes of scientific evaluation, which is what the World Heritage listing is supposed to be all about. So not only is the umpire to be fixed but the race jury, if I can extend the metaphor, is also to be nobbled. As if this were enough in itself, Mott's telex reveals two other significant matters about which the Federal Labor Government is being quite deceitful. The UNESCO Ambassador reports that the World Heritage Committee: Secretariat would like to use Australia as `a motor'- those are the Committee's words- to promote World Heritage work in Asia, a region that is below par in the field . . . The Opposition rejects entirely the idea of our country being used as `a motor' to put pressure on others. World Heritage matters are for us to determine according to what is good for Australia-not for anybody else's agenda or purposes, least of all UNESCO. Finally, the Mott telex admits that in relation to Kakadu, the nomination proceeded without proper consultations with the Government of the Northern Territory `despite the existence of procedures for this purpose'. Mott admits that Australia is progressively coming to be seen by the World Heritage Committee as `a one-issue country' and that: if anything can be done to improve the system this would help . . . The way in which the Government has gone about this whole process has been flawed from the outset because it has clearly determined on a course of action in regard to north Queensland; it has clearly pursued that without giving the new Government of Queensland the opportunity to engage in consultation over this matter. It is an interesting admission by Senator Richardson that, in relation to Shark Bay, the Government of Western Australia asked him not to proceed, and he agreed not to proceed, because they are discussing the matter. Yet when the Queensland Government, the Ahern Government, makes an offer to Senator Richardson to talk, he says, `Fine, but nevertheless I intend to proceed'. In other words, it is one law for the Labor Party State Government in Western Australia, because it is disconcerted with the public reaction which is evident in Western Australia over the proposed nomination of Shark Bay. This Government's view is that to get its mates off the hook in Western Australia, it will allow them to say to the Government, `Please don't proceed'. Here is the expose of the hypocrisy of the argument that somehow the Opposition has caved in to a State veto. What Senator Richardson has said today in this debate about Shark Bay is simply this, `I had discussions with the Western Australian Minister and the Western Australian Minister asked me not to proceed. I agreed not to proceed'-for no other reason than that the Western Australian State Labor administration was able to get a deal out of Senator Richardson, a deal which he is not prepared to give to the Government of Queensland. I think that this is quite typical of the way in which the Government has proceeded in this matter. I would like to spend a considerable amount of time on these two clauses, but there are colleagues of mine from Queensland who, in the few remaining minutes which the Government has allocated for debate on this legislation, undoubtedly would like to make some contribution. Therefore, I shall afford them the opportunity to do so. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(12.39) —I thank my colleague Senator Puplick, who has done wonderful things for the coalition in this debate. We have certainly worked as a team in opposing this legislation. Well, the dying moments are here, the last two clauses are being debated, and people's livelihoods are now on the rack. I do not want to debate that any further; I have already pointed it out. I think the message has come through fairly loud and clear to the electorate that the Australian Labor Party has disowned its natural constituents. I ask the Minister: Why did he not go and talk to the Premier of Queensland, Mr Ahern, when he asked for consultation? One of the first acts of the new Premier of Queensland when he went into office was to telex the Minister and the Minister ignored him. Senator Richardson —He telexed the Prime Minister. You keep getting that wrong. Senator BOSWELL —Mr Ahern telexed the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister wishes to treat the Minister like a mushroom and keep him in the dark, so be it. If the Minister says that there is no consultation between him and the Prime Minister, I can understand that. But why did this Government not meet its commitment to talk to the Queensland Government? I can see many flaws in this legislation. One person wrote to me today saying, `If we cannot appeal to the High Court, whom do we appeal to? There is no right of appeal any more under this legislation'. Mining companies and timber companies cannot appeal. The only avenue of appeal they have is, not to the High Court, but to a Minister who is committed to tying up great lumps of Australia and making them uneconomical. Australia's economic position is desperate, our standard of living is falling and our debt is rising; yet the Minister goes down this stupid track and tries to close up great areas of Australia, make them unproductive and put people out of work. I say to the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) that, after 15 days, I will move for disallowance of the regulations-I am sure that I will have the backing of my Queensland senatorial colleagues, both National and Liberal-and we will go through this process again. Over the next three weeks I will talk to people such as the Australian Labor Party spokesman on forestry, Mr Eaton. I will talk to lots of Labor Party people in Queensland-- Senator Panizza —The Democrats might come to their senses by then. Senator BOSWELL —I will not waste my time by talking to the Australian Democrats, but there are some sensible people in the Labor Party in Queensland who are opposed to this legislation. I believe that the Government gagged this debate today because it was worried that its numbers would disappear like morning mist and it would not be able to control the vote in this chamber. We saw yesterday that we have already come down to a narrow margin of one. I believe that the motive for this gag motion today was that if the Government left it any longer it would not be able to control its troops. The Government will have another 15 days before I move for disallowance of the regulations and then the Government will have to control its numbers again. In that time I hope that we will whip up great opposition to this Bill. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.43) —I rise finally to draw attention to the fact that, despite yesterday's abuse by Senator Richardson of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service and its management plans, when one looks at Senator Richardson's document entitled Nomination of Wet Tropic Rainforests of North-East Queensland by the Government of Australia for Inclusion in the World Heritage List, one sees under the heading `Management Plans' on page 17 that he says: A management plan for the entire area will be developed as soon as possible. There are Statements of Purpose and Management Guidelines for the National Parks managed by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. In other words, Senator Richardson is prepared to go to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and say, `Here is my nomination for the Queensland wet tropics and, on behalf of the nomination and in support of the nomination, I cite to you the fact that there are statements of purpose and management guidelines for the national parks managed by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. Presumably they are adequate and presumably they are the sorts of things that I should put before you to indicate that the area can be managed'. Yet during yesterday's debate there was nothing but abuse and vilification of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. There was nothing but abuse and vilification of its management capacity and its integrity as far as looking after the national parks and resources of Queensland is concerned. If one looks at this document from which I am quoting, one can see that on a number of occasions-there is a whole raft of examples-Senator Richardson was quite happy to draw upon the expertise and the management plans which the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service has in place and continues to use. As far as one can see, the document therefore sets quite at nought the comments which were made yesterday by Senator Richardson and allows a quite clear demonstration-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Morris) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., I put the question: That clauses 10 and 11 stand as printed, that the remainder of the Bill stand as printed and that the Bill be reported. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.45) —Contingent notice of motion No. 23, standing in the name of Senator Chaney, provides that, contingent on the Chair declaring that the time allotted for the consideration of any Bill or any stage of any Bill has expired, he will move: That so much of Standing Order 407b be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the Bill, or the stage of the Bill, without limitation of time or for a specified time. Therefore, I move: That so much of standing order 407b be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the Bill without limitation of time. It being 12.45 p.m., under the resolution gagged through the Senate earlier in the day, the so-called guillotine provisions have been put into place. It is quite clear that the Government is going to pursue this matter, that it is going to pursue the guillotine. On the basis that this matter will, presumably, move in an exorable fashion, I seek to give the Australian Democrats and Senator Vallentine an opportunity to reclaim their oft-deserted principles, an opportunity to recant, an opportunity to demonstrate that they do, in fact, have-- Senator Robert Ray —You are not reflecting on a vote of the Senate, I hope? Senator PUPLICK —Not at all. I am certainly reflecting on the principles of the Australian Democrats. I would never reflect upon a vote of the Senate. I shall give the Democrats the opportunity to reclaim some shred of integrity. I see that Senator Jones has been sent over to where Senator Vallentine is sitting to make sure that she does not weaken in her resolve to be a thug and a bully as far as this chamber is concerned. Senator Wood is now being leant upon by Senator Jones to make sure that he does not recant. In a moment, after all the offensive remarks made about my bow tie yesterday in the course of various debates, the next thing we will see is Senator McKiernan, in his famous red socks, in here making sure that Senator Wood-who is similarly dressed and undoubtedly has a similar view about the use of these jackboot tactics-is not allowed to weaken in his resolve in this matter. This is simply an opportunity to draw attention once again to the fact that the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill is being unnecess- arily pursued in terms of its timing. It is being pursued in a way which, quite clearly, is indicative of the fact that those opposite want to get it into the House of Representatives today. They want to gag it through the House of Representatives before the House rises tonight for the two-week recess period. It is quite clear that the debate will be entirely truncated-Senator Gareth Evans is still smiling, which presumably means that he still has the Democrats in his pocket and not just that he is pleased to see them-and that the legislation will continue to be dealt with in the fashion in which it is being pursued at the moment. As I said, we will give the Democrats, Senator Vallentine and Senator Wood one last chance to redeem some shred of honour. Senator Wood —Ha, ha! Senator PUPLICK —I note Senator Wood's outburst of laughter. I just hope he has not been given a promise about the outcome of the High Court decision in order to keep him where he is. The opportunity to recant ought to be extended to the Democrats, Senator Vallentine and Senator Wood on one last occasion, because one never gives up on sinners until the very last moment. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator J. J. Morris) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vallentine, J.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Wood, W. R.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Button, J. N. Archer, B. R.Sibraa, K. W. Hill, R. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Puplick's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator J. J. Morris) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vallentine, J.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Wood, W. R.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Button, J. N.Hill, R. M. Sibraa, K. W. Question so resolved in the negative. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question now is that clauses 10 and 11 stand as printed, that the remainder of the Bill stand as printed and that the Bill be reported. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator J. J. Morris) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, J. N.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vallentine, J.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Wood, W. R.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Button, J. N. Archer, B. R.Sibraa, K. W. Hill, R. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported without amendment, together with a resolution, agreed to in committee, under standing order 407b, that the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill be until 12.45 p.m. this day. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(1.06) —I move: That the report of the Committee be adopted. I also move: That the question be now put. Question put. That the question be now put. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vallentine, J.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Wood, W. R.Giles, B. J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Button, J. N. Archer, B. R.Sibraa, K. W. Hill, R. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Gareth Evans's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vallentine, J.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Wood, W. R.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Button, J. N. Archer, B. R.Sibraa, K. W. Hill, R. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Consequent on the adoption of the Committee report, I now put the question that this Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. NBlack, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vallentine, J.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Wood, W. R.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Button, J. N. Archer, B. R.Sibraa, K. W. Hill, R. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Pursuant to sessional order, the Senate will now consider matters of public interest. Senator DEVEREUX(Tasmania)(1.20) —I rise in this debate on matters of public interest to express my concern about the public questioning in Tasmania of the integrity of the trade union movement because of occurrences late last year with regard to the election within the State branch of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. The election was for a number of positions, but particularly the State secretaryship and State presidency of the organisation-both full time positions in Tasmania. The Returning Officer, a Mr Bob Ridley, announced the result of the ballot. The result was that the encumbents, a Mr Maurie Hill, the State President, and Mr Geoff Adams were both defeated in that election. I might add that some surprise was expressed by people both within the membership of that organisation and within the trade union movement generally that such a result had occurred, because they were particularly competent and very popular officials of that organisation. It is also of interest that the election was run by the organisation itself and that the Returning Officer was Mr Ridley, a previous Secretary of the organisation who, it just so happens, was defeated at the last election-some four years ago-by Mr Adams, who was defeated in this election. The two people concerned, Mr Hill and Mr Adams, had it drawn to their notice following the declaration of the ballot that there were some rather strange circumstances surrounding the election. They then found it necessary to notify the Federal Court of Australia of their concerns about these matters. An investigation was carried out by the Industrial Registrar and, as a result of those investigations, the matter was referred by the Industrial Registrar to the Federal Court of Australia. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard four documents relating to the matter. The first is a report to the Federal Court by the Industrial Registrar. The second document is an annexure B, which is a memorandum of interview with Mr Ridley, a Mr Asher and a Mr P. Herrod, officers of the Industrial Registrar's Office. That interview took place on 19 and 20 January. The third document is an annexure C, short notes of a discussion on 11 February between Mr Riseley, Branch Secretary of the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association, and Ms R. Yaxley and Ms M. Watson, printers at Tastech Print. The fourth document records another interview, between Mr Ridley and Mr D. Small, who is the Deputy Returning Officer, and officers of the Industrial Registrar's Office, which took place on 11 February. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for the incorporation of these four documents? Senator Puplick —We would like the courtesy of having a look at the documents before agreeing to the incorporations. If Senator Devereux can show them to me I will cast my eye over them. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question of incorporation is deferred until the Opposition has seen the documents. Senator DEVEREUX —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. The Industrial Registrar, in his report to the Federal Court, noted a number of discrepancies in the election. I will read through some of those matters. He listed them as follows: (i) It was apparent that a number of ballot papers (at least 144) had identification marks consistent with ballot papers having been filled in one on top of another. (ii) Having regard to the layout of the ballot paper, indentations on many of those papers were clearly consistent with having been caused as a result of another ballot paper being marked to indicate a vote in favour of Luttrell, Finn O'Neill or Meagher. (See copy of ballot paper-Annexure I). (iii) All ballot papers on which such indentation marks were evident, indicated on their face, a vote in favour of Luttrell, Finn, O'Neil and Meagher. (iv) All of such ballot papers with indentations appeared to have been made out in the same hand. (v) A large number of additional papers (at least 240) also appeared to have been made out by the same, or a similar, hand and also showed on their face, a vote in favour of Luttrell, Finn, O'Neill and Meagher. (vi) Of the 384 ballot papers identified above, 223 clearly exhibited evidence of what we believe to be electrostatic solution used in the printing process. Evidence of that solution was found on only 11 of the remaining 1348 ballot papers returned from voters and on only 28 of 1375 unused ballot papers. The significance of the existence of electrostatic solution on many of those papers will become evident later in this report when details of the printing of the ballot papers are discussed. The Industrial Registrar went on to say: It is open to conclusion, based on these discoveries, that some person or persons unknown, fraudulently obtained, completed and introduced into the ballot an indeterminable number (but in all likelihood not less than 384) of ballot papers, ballot paper envelopes and Business Reply envelopes. I refer at this stage to the Returning Officer's responsibilities, particularly in relation to ballot papers. The rules of the organisation say that two envelopes are to be sent out and that the Returning Officer may declare papers invalid if the voting paper is not enclosed in two separate envelopes, one inside the other, when it is returned. There is an important question there in that 82 ballot papers were not placed inside the second envelope and were declared informal by the Returning Officer when he counted the ballot. I want to refer to those ballot papers a little later, because they have some importance with regard to this matter. The Returning Officer, in the conduct of such ballots, and particularly under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, also has a responsibility to ensure when he gets ballot papers printed that he has a certificate from the printer saying that he received a certain number of papers, and at the end of the ballot it is his responsibility to ensure that he has an accurate record, which he can verify, of how many papers were sent out and how many were not used. All that has to be documented. The Industrial Registrar went on to say in his report that a certificate was issued, and Mr Ridley, the Returning Officer, quite clearly had a certificate, but the interesting part reads as follows: The `certificate' prepared by Tastech Print for the Returning Officer, and dated 11 December 1987, some six weeks after the job was completed, is in my opinion of no more value than a simple acknowledgment of a job done. The ballot papers were not physically counted and I was informed that the mechanical counter used on the machine is only accurate to about 1%. He went on to say that more than the 5,000 ballot papers claimed on the certificate could have been printed. He then went on to talk about the electrostatic solution that may have spoiled some papers. He said: Bearing in mind that because of the position of the electrostatic solution on the spoiled sheets only one ballot paper on each sheet is affected, the large number of ballot papers in existence which show evidence of that solution (i.e. 262 out of 3107 examined) is in my opinion inconsistent with the concept of the printing operator culling such imperfect sheets, unless of course those sheets were somehow later included for use in the ballot. Having regard to the available facts and particularly noting the lack of information available concerning the number of such extra sheets produced, I have been unable to satisfy myself that these sheets could not have been included in the ballot. From what he was saying there and from records of interviews, it became clear that there could have been anything up to 6,000 sheets actually printed, rather than the 5,000 shown on the certificate. I move now to the matter of the 82 papers that I spoke of. I believe that they have some significance in the whole issue. The Industrial Registrar talked about the possible effects of some of the irregularities that he found. He spoke of the margin, and went on to say: The margin in votes between candidates in the ballot is as follows:- State President-majority for Luttrell over Hill...279 State President, majority for Finn over Adams...389 An examination of the 82 informal ballot papers referred to in the above revealed the following voting preferences- for the presidency- Luttrell...34 Hill...47 Informal...1 and for the secretaryship- Adams...48 Finn...34 I make that comparison because the result of the count of the 82 papers that were declared informal was completely different from the count of the full ballot. I have had, as I guess some others in the Senate have had, some experience at scrutineering. Quite clearly, these 82 papers would be regarded as random papers from varying places that members just did not place in the right envelope. I think anyone who has scrutineered would agree that, if one took 80 to 100-odd papers at random, on about 98 per cent of occasions that would reflect fairly closely the overall end result of the ballot. Quite strangely in this case, the two defeated candidates won quite overwhelmingly out of the 82 votes referred to, yet were soundly defeated in the full ballot. I now draw attention to the fact that the Returning Officer, in an interview on 19 and 20 January, said that the ballot papers were in his possession at all times, that only about 5,000 had been printed and that no-one else had access to those papers at any stage. It was very interesting that, in a subsequent interview, the people who printed the papers said that they had no recollection of any of this physical counting going on and admitted that the number of papers was a guesstimate and that possibly anything up to 6,000 papers could have been printed rather than the 5,000 stated on the certificate. On 11 February, after that information was conveyed to Mr Ridley in a second interview by officers in the Industrial Registrar's Office, Mr Ridley would make no comment as to who may have had access to ballot papers. What all that adds up to is that, quite obviously, and in the opinion of the Industrial Registrar, there was some interference. It is very apparent there was interference in that ballot by person or persons unknown. It seems to me that this is very important from the point of view of the trade union movement, about which we often hear stories of rigged ballots and the like. I think those stories are quite false but they are peddled around in the community from time to time. When an instance such as this arises I think it is very important in the public interest that it is completely cleared up. In concluding my remarks here today, for the overall good and reputation of the trade union movement I make a public call for a complete police inquiry into this matter. It is essential that it be cleared up in a proper manner so that the reputations of all the people who took part in that ballot can be cleared or otherwise. I think it is very important that that occurs. Mr Deputy President, I sought to incorporate some papers in Hansard. I do not know whether Senator Puplick has now looked at them. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted to incorporate the documents? Leave granted. The documents read as follows- INDUSTRIAL REGISTRAR Report on Investigation (for the purposes of S. 160) into Election in the Tasmanian Branch of The Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union (R Nos. 305 of 1987 and 5 of 1988) A. Details of Applications 1. Applications, made under s. 159 of the Act, were filed in the Tasmanian District Registry by Geoffrey David Adams and Maurice Kenneth Hill on 24 December 1987 and 11 January 1988, respectively. The applications were made in the prescribed form, were accompanied by a (Commonwealth) Statutory Declaration and were filed within six months of the completion of the subject election. 2. The applicants alleged irregularities in the conduct of the election for State President and State Secretary in the Tasmanian Branch of the Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union. 3. A copy of the particulars of alleged irregularities and facts relied on (which are similar for both applications) is attached to this report (ANNEXURE ``C''). In addition a number of other matters were raised during the course of the investigation. B. Manner of Inquiry Action under s. 160 (3a) commenced on 19 January 1988 and for the purposes of such inquiry the applications were treated as being joined. Mr G. Adams was interviewed on 19 January. He was accompanied by his solicitor Mr J. Green, the other applicant Mr M. Hill, and Mr D. Price the scrutineer for Mr Hill. After general discussion it was agreed that only Mr Adams need be formally interviewed. The memorandum of interview is ANNEXURE ``A'' to this report. Mr R. Ridley (Branch Returning Officer) was initially interviewed on 19 and 20 January 1988. He was accompanied by the Assistant Returning Officer Mr D. Small. The memorandum of interview is ANNEXURE ``B'' to this report. Further discussions took place with Mr Ridley on 11 February 1988 and notes of this meeting constitute ANNEXURE ``H''. Persons involved in the printing of the ballot papers used in the election were interviewed on 11 February 1988 and notes of those discussions constitute ANNEXURE ``G'' to this report. Using powers granted under s.s. 160 (3a) (d) of the Act, I took possession of the voting rolls, returned Business Reply envelopes and ballot papers to facilitate close examination and to ensure the security of that material. C. Findings re: alleged irregularities, facts relied on, and other relevant matters 1. Allegation-``The ballot papers were not signed or initialled by the State Returning Officer, the said Robert Ridley.'' There appears to be no basis for this claim. The rules of the organization [Part ``B'' sub-rule 7 (g)] require that the Returning Officer shall forward to voters `` . . . a ballot paper initialled by the State Returning Officer or bearing a facsimile of those initials . . . ''. It is apparent that, in accordance with the rules, the Returning Office signed his initials on the master print copy of the ballot papers thereby causing a facsimile of his initials to appear on each ballot paper printed. 2. Allegation-``The Returning Officer was Robert Ridley, the former Tasmanian Secretary of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, who was defeated in a ballot which concluded in December 1983 by Geoffrey David Adams.'' This statement was made for the purpose of showing a reason for ill-feeling between the Returning Officer and Mr Adams. 3. Allegation-``The roll of voters was not compiled by the Returning Officer the said Robert Ridley.'' Sub-rule 7 (b) of Part ``B'' of the rules provides that `` . . . the State Returning Officer shall compile the roll of voters for the ballot and may for this purpose direct the State Secretary to supply him with records relating to membership of the Union in that State.'' Membership records for the organization are kept centrally, on computer, in Melbourne. It appears that the Returning Officer in accordance with normal Branch election procedure requested the Data Processing and Audit Officer of the union to supply him with, inter alia, a computer print out of members eligible to vote in the election. There has been no allegation that the roll of voters used by the Returning Officer was in any way incorrect. 4. Allegation-``The sealed envelope enclosing the ballot papers and returned address envelope did not bear an endorsement that if it is not delivered to the addressee it is to be returned to the said State Returning Officer, the said Robert Ridley, at a specified private post box at a Post Office, being a post box other than that to which the ballot papers were to be returned.'' There appears to be no basis for this allegation. The Returning Officer obtained the use of Post Office Box 1332N for the sole purpose of receiving undelivered mail. A photocopy of such an undelivered envelope (ANNEXURE D) is self evident. 5. Allegation-``In past elections for the positions of Tasmanian State President and Tasmanian State Secretary the percentage of financial members eligible to vote who have voted in that election has been between 25-30 per cent. In this election 1747 ballot papers were returned out of a total of 3616 ballot papers issued being a return of 48 per cent.'' While it is possible that there may have been a higher return in this election than in many elections in the past, it is notable that the declaration in relation to the previous election for the subject positions, held in 1983, indicates a return in excess of 48%. (See ANNEXURE ``E''). 6. Allegation-``5000 manilla envelopes were printed for this election as were 5000 reply paid envelopes and 10,000 grey envelopes to hold the ballot papers by Monotone Art Printers Pty Ltd.'' See answer to question 17-Annexure ``B''. No further comment is required. 7. Allegation-``The ballot opened on the 30th of November 1987 and closed on the 21st of December 1987. Since the 14th of December 1987 approximately 700 ballot papers were received. This is contrary to all past experience where very few ballot papers are received in the last week of the election.'' During his interview, Mr Adams indicated that the date of 11 December 1987 would be more appropriate than the date of 14 December contained in this allegation which was purportedly based on the number of papers collected from the Post Office on certain days during the ballot. It is obvious (see attachment B10 to Annexure ``B'') that from and including 11 December 1987 a total of only 503 papers were collected. I draw no conclusions based solely on the numbers of papers collected from the Post Office on or from certain days. 8. Allegation-``Approximately 600 ballot papers appear to have been filled in by one person''. It appears that Mr Adams was informed by his scrutineer, Mr Gyselman, that in his opinion some ballot papers had been filled in in similar handwriting. Mr Adams had then, for the purposes of his application, estimated that the number of papers involved was 600. This estimate does appear to have been based more on a false premise than on a fact. (See answers to questions 8 and 10-Annexure ``A''). Nevertheless, an exhaustive examination of ballot papers was conducted over a period of time by Mr P. Herrod and myself. During this examination, a number of significant discoveries were made: (i) It was apparent that a number of ballot papers (at least 144) had indentation marks consistent with ballot papers having been filled in one on top of another. (ii) Having regard to the layout of the ballot paper, indentations on many of those papers were clearly consistent with having been caused as a result of another ballot paper being marked to indicate a vote in favour of Luttrell, Finn, O'Neill or Meagher (See copy of ballot paper-ANNEXURE I) (iii) All ballot papers on which such indentation marks were evident indicated, on their face, a vote in favour of Luttrell, Finn, O'Neill and Meagher. (iv) All of such ballot papers with indentations appeared to have been made out in the same hand. (v) A large number of additional papers (at least 240) also appeared to have been made out by that same, or a similar, hand and also showed on their face, a vote in favour of Luttrell, Finn, O'Neill and Meagher. (vi) Of the 384 ballot papers identified above, 223 clearly exhibited evidence of what we believe to be the electrostatic solution used in the printing process. Evidence of that solution was found on only 11 of the remaining 1348 ballot papers returned from voters and on only 28 of the 1375 unused ballot papers. The significance of the existence of electrostatic solution on many of those papers will become evident later in this report when details of the printing of the ballot papers are discussed. It is open to conclusion, based on these discoveries, that some person or persons unknown, fraudulently obtained, completed and introduced into the ballot an indeterminable number (but in all likelihood not less than 384) of ballot papers, ballot paper envelopes and Business Reply envelopes. 9. Informal ballot papers. Sub-rule 7 (q)-Part ``B'' of the rules of the organization provides ``A ballot paper shall be informal if: (i) it does not bear the initials of the State Returning Officer or a facsimile of those initials; (ii) it has upon it a mark or writing by which the voter can be identified; (iii) it is not marked substantially in accordance with any directions to voters by the State Returning Officer and the intention of the voter is not clear; or (iv) it is not returned in the outer envelope.'' A number of ballot papers (82) were declared informal by the Returning Officer on the basis that they had not been enclosed in an inner ``ballot paper'' envelope as well as the Business Reply envelope. It could be argued that those ballot papers should, in fact, have been admitted to the count. 10. Postmarked Business Reply envelopes. As a consequence of the matters covered in paragraph number 8 of this report, the Business Reply envelopes returned by voters were sorted, where possible, into various categories based on the postmark stamped on each envelope. A table detailing the results constitutes ANNEXURE ``F'' to this report. Despite an indication that the figures in relation to the numbers of papers posted in Hobart on certain days might appear to be inordinately high, I am unable to draw any definite conclusion solely from the information contained in the table. 11. Printing of Ballot Papers, etc. The ballot papers were printed on 30 October 1987 by Tastech Print of 105 New Town Road, New Town. Information was provided by employees of the company as to the procedure followed when printing those papers (see ANNEXURE ``G''). It is apparent that during the course of the printing operation a number of sheets (each consisting of 2 ballot papers) were either treated as ``set-up'' copies or were culled during the printing run as a result of some imperfection including the existence of electrostatic solution on the sheet. I am satisfied that as a result of a number of such imperfections being caused by a problem with the template, a second such template was produced and used to complete the printing run. Neither the printing machine operator nor the Returning Officer, who were both in attendance during the printing operation, were prepared to give an estimate of the total number of ``set-up'' or culled sheets produced during this operation. Unfortunately, the company's job control sheet for the job, which may well have shown the number of extra sheets used over and above the 2500 required, is not now available. The ``certificate'' prepared by Tastech Print for the Returning Officer, and dated 11 December 1987, some six weeks after the job was completed, is in my opinion of no more value than simple acknowledgement of a job done. The ballot papers were not physically counted and I was informed that the mechanical counter used on the machine is only accurate to about 1%. That in itself indicates the possibility that up to 50 extra ballot papers may have been supplied to the Returning Officer. In addition, no information is given in relation to the number of extra sheets printed in the operation and described above, which were provided to the Returning Officer along with the master templates. It has not been disputed that the Returning Officer took possession of all ballot papers, the ``spoiled'' sheets and printing templates at the completion of the printing operation on 30 October. An examination of the 40 odd ``spoiled'' sheets which are currently in existence reveals that a number of those sheets could easily have been guillotined to provide a suitable ballot paper for use in the ballot. In fact, some of the sheets contain ballot papers which are in better condition than many of the ballot papers actually used in the ballot. Bearing in mind that because of the position of the electrostatic solution on the spoiled sheets only one ballot paper on each sheet is affected, the large number of ballot papers in existence which show evidence of that solution (i.e. 262 out of 3107 examined) is in my opinion inconsistent with the concept of the printing operator culling such imperfect sheets, unless of course, those sheets were somehow later included for use in the ballot. Having regard to the available facts and particularly noting the lack of information available concerning the number of such extra sheets produced, I have been unable to satisfy myself that those sheets could not have been included in the ballot. 12. During the investigation, a number of persons suggested that ballot papers may have been produced by the use of a photocopy machine and then fraudulently introduced into the ballot. For a number of reasons, including the fact that all potentially fraudulent ballot papers appeared to have been individually stamped with the Returning Officer's stamp and that many had traces of electrostatic solution which would not have been evident had those papers been a photocopy, I do not believe that there is any merit in that suggestion. D. Possible irregularities in connection with the election Irregularities in the election could have occurred by virtue of the following:- 1. The action of the Returning Officer in declaring 82 ballot papers informal on the basis that they were not enclosed in an inner ``ballot paper'' envelope. 2. The suspected action of a person or persons unnamed fraudulently filling in an unknown quantity of ballot papers in favour of Luttrell, Finn, O'Neill and Meagher the successful candidates for the positions of State President, State Secretary and Delegates to National Conference, respectively. E. Possible effect of above matters on the subject positions The margin in votes between candidates in the ballot is as follows:- State President-majority for Luttrell over Hill 279 State Secretary-majority for Finn over Adams 389 An examination of the 82 informal ballot papers referred to above revealed the following voting preferences: Luttrell...34 Hill...47 Adams...48 Finn...34 Informal...1 Although no estimate is made of the total number of papers which may have been fraudulently completed, it is believed that at least 384 of such papers have been completed in favour of Luttrell and Finn. Clearly then, the result of the ballot for the positions of State President and State Secretary may have been affected by the possible irregularities. F. Conclusion and Recommendation In my view the application should be referred to the Federal Court on the basis that there are reasonable grounds for an inquiry into the question of whether there has been an irregularity in or in connection with the election which may have affected the result of the election and that the circumstances of the matter justify an inquiry by the Court. It should be noted that, had either of the applications sought to include the positions of Regional Delegates to National Conference in the inquiry, I would also have recommended that they be included in the reference to Court. H. J. Asher 16 Feb. 1988 ANNEXURE B Memorandum of interview with Mr R. Ridley by Mr H. Asher and Mr P. Herrod, officers of the Industrial Registrar's Office, in Hobart on Tuesday 19 January, and Wednesday 20 January, 1988. Note-The following is an edited version of interview and is not intended to be a verbatim record. Mr Ridley was accompanied by Mr D. Small (Deputy Returning Officer). Question 1-What is your name, address and occupation? Answer-Robert Ridley, 18 Nelson Ave. Kingston 7050, retired. Question 2-Are you the State Returning Officer for the AMWU? Answer-Yes. I was appointed by the State Conference and incidentally neither Mr Hill or Mr Adams, who were present at that Conference, raised any objection to my appointment. (Copies of relevant minutes of Conference provided-SEE ATTACHMENT B1). Question 3-Are you the holder of any other office in, or an employee of, the union or any branch, section or division of the union? Answer-No. Question 4-Did you conduct the recent Branch election which is now the subject of applications for inquiry? Answer-Yes. For your information I also previously conducted a ballot in the AMWU for Delegates to State Conference. That election was conducted in June 1987 and as the Assistant Returning Officer was overseas I conducted it by myself. There were no objections made in relation to that election. Question 5-Did you set the times and dates for the opening and closing of nominations and of the ballot? Answer-Yes, in accordance with the rules of the union. Question 6-Who prepared the roll of voters for use in the election? Answer-In accordance with union practice, I requested Mr J. Brown from the Melbourne Office to provide me with computer lists and adhesive labels. I received those back and they formed the roll (copies of relevant correspondence provided-SEE ATTACHMENT B2). Question 7-With regard to the list of members who were financial, but had left their address, how many were on that list and did you forward ballot papers to those members? Answer-There were 49 names on that list. There were no adhesive address labels provided for those, so no ballot papers were sent. Question 8-Did you arrange for the printing of ballot papers, if so by whom, and why? Answer-Yes, I arranged for the ballot papers to be printed by TASTECH PRINT. They have done printing in the past for the union, things like letterheads and so on. I prepared the format of the paper along the lines of previous elections (copy of a previous ballot paper provided-SEE ATTACHMENT B3). Question 9-Did you obtain a certificate from the printer as to the number of papers printed? Answer-Yes. (copy of certificate provided-SEE ATTACHMENT B4). Question 10-How was the printing done? Answer-The girl ran them off on a machine while I was in attendance. I took the ballot papers and the master copies and gathered up all the misprints etc and took them with me. Question 11-How did you place your initials on the ballot papers? Answer-I signed the master copy in two places, as you will see there were two papers on the one master (The master copies were examined and discussion took place. A difference was noted between the initials on each paper and the position of the circle in each paper.) Question 12-Why are there two master copies? Answer-The printer started running papers off with the first one but there was some problem, I think with a tear in the bottom right hand corner, so another master had to be made. Question 13-Why wasn't security paper used for the ballot papers? Answer-Never heard of it. (Explanation given) As far as I know it has never been used in the past and I was just following past practice. Question 14-Why didn't you destroy the master copies and imperfect or misprinted ballot papers in the presence of the printer? Answer-Because under the rules and the Act I have to keep all election material for twelve months and I considered that they were all part of that material. Question 15-Why did you have so many ballot papers printed i.e. 5000? Answer-No special reason other than I had conducted an election previously in a zone and I had 1500 papers printed for that. There are three zones of approximately equal size so 3 times 1500 equals 4500 and as it wouldn't have cost much extra for a few more. I thought 5000 was a reasonable figure. Question 16-Did you physically count the ballot papers to make sure there were only 5000? Answer-No. The woman who printed them would have had a counter on the machine and she indicated that there were 5000 and that is backed up by the certificate. Question 17-Why did you have so many envelopes printed? Answer-I had extra envelopes printed because I have another ballot coming up shortly and we use those same envelopes in all our elections. (Copies of documents from Monotone Art Printers supplied see attachment B5) Question 18-Who placed the Union stamp on the ballot papers? Answer-I personally stamped the ballot papers at home. I did 3616 at home and 3 at the office later. (Copy of stamp provided see attachment B6) Question 19-Who has access to that stamp? Answer-I do. It is a special Returning Officer stamp which is kept in my possession at all times. Question 20-Were you satisfied with the security arrangements for the ballot papers, the master copies and the stamp? Answer-Yes. Everything was kept in my custody at home. Not even the Deputy Returning Officer had access to them. They were kept at my home until 4 January when I locked them in my room at the office here. I even kept the box of spare envelopes at home. Keep in mind that candidates in the election work in the office and are here every day whilst I only come in on certain days. I don't think they could have got to them anyway. Question 21-Did you inform any scrutineers of the times and dates on which ballot papers would be posted, collected and counted? Answer-Yes. I will give you copies of relevant correspondence to scrutineers. (Correspondence provided see attachment B7) Question 22-Did they take advantage of the opportunity to attend during those times? Answer-Scrutineers for Adams and Hill did not attend at either the postage or collection of ballot papers. Question 23-How many ballot papers were posted? Answer-3619. The certificate from the Post Office indicates 3616 were posted on 30 November. A further 3 were posted later as a result of requests from members. (Copies of correspondence supplied see attachment B8) Question 24-What Post Office boxes were used in the conduct of the election? Answer-P.O. Box 5000Z was used for the return of ballot papers. This same box has been used by the union for years. P.O. Box 1332N was used for the return of undelivered mail. This was taken out in September and it was the first time we had used that particular box. (Copies of correspondence and receipt provided see attachment B9) Question 25-Are those boxes used solely for the conduct of elections? Answer-Yes. P.O. Box 935J is used for the normal office mail. Question 26-Who had control of the keys to those two boxes? Answer-I had the keys to both boxes at all times and no one else had access. Question 271-When did you do a collection from P.O. Box 1332N? Answer-It would have been in the last week of the ballot, then another at the beginning of January. Question 28-How many were returned unclaimed? Answer-27 plus 1 received this morning, so 28. Question 29-When did you make collections of ballot papers from Post Office Box 5000Z and what happened to the papers after each collection? Answer-A list of times and dates is shown on the document provided (SEE ATTACHMENT B10) On the days we removed ballot papers from the Post Office they were taken to the Commonwealth Bank and stored there. Scrutineer Peck was in attendance at all times as was the Assistant Returning Officer. They also initialled the parcels. On other days we didn't think there were enough ballot papers to warrant taking them to the Bank (a fee of $10 was payable to the Bank for each lodgement) so we bundled up the ballot papers and left them in the P.O. Box until the next collection. (SEE ATTACHMENT B11) Question 30-You informed scrutineers that you would do a collection at the Post Office on the 2nd and the 16th of December but the document provided by you does not indicate a collection on those dates. Can you explain why? Answer-Yes. On the 2nd I went down and felt the bag and as there were hardly any in it I decided it wasn't worth even opening the bag. The ballot papers had only been sent to members at 2 p.m. on 30 November and there hadn't been enough time for many to have been returned. Because of the numbers dropping off and the small number received on the 14th we decided, and scrutineer Peck agreed, that it wasn't worth going down on the 16th. Question 31-When did you count the ballot? Answer-Just after 11 a.m. on the 21st. The ballot closed at 10 a.m., we collected the ballot papers from the Post Office and then the Bank and after borrowing a letter-opening machine from the Electoral Office we started the count. Question 32-Did scrutineers attend the count? Answer-Yes, three scrutineers attended, however Mr Price left soon after the counting of the Presidents' position which we did first. Question 33-Did you declare the result of the ballot? Answer-Yes, I will provide a copy of my declaration (SEE ATTACHMENT B12) Question 34-A number of ballot papers were declared informal. Can you explain why? Answer-I decided that I would only count those which were contained in a white ``ballot paper'' envelope and enclosed in the ``reply paid'' envelope. There were about 83 which were not in a white ``ballot paper'' envelope and this was not strictly in accordance with the instructions on the ballot-paper. Because of the numbers involved they would not have made any difference anyway. If the ballot had been close we may have had cause to re-consider those papers and how we should treat them but there was no need. Question 35-Were those 83 contained in a ``reply paid'' envelope? Answer-Yes they were. Question 36-During or immediately after the count, did any scrutineer mention anything or raise any particular matter with you? Answer-No, they never raised any problem or made any mention of any query. Question 37-How many ballot papers were returned after the close of the ballot? Answer-16 were collected on 4 January and another 6 on the 8th, so 22 so far. Question 38-We have counted the number of ballot papers you have identified as being unused ballot papers (in other words not counting the misprints) and there appears to be a discrepancy of six. Can you explain that? Answer-I kept 1 for the file (file sighted) and as for the others, perhaps the printer made a mistake when allowing for mutilated or imperfect papers. ANNEXURE C Short notes of discussion between Mr B. Riseley (Branch Sec. A.T.E.A.), Ms R. Yaxley, Ms M. Watson, Mr I. McLeod and Mr H. Asher at the office of Tastech Print, 105 Newtown Road, Newtown on 11 February 1988. Mr Riseley indicated that it was the company's practice when printing ballot papers of any kind to insist that the Returning Officer take possession of the master printing plate and any spoiled and discarded material. When asked about the use of security paper, he replied that it was not normally requested although they had used it at times. They would order it if required, at an extra cost to the customer. He expressed doubts about its effectiveness. Mr Riseley and Ms Yaxley said they both remembered the particular job done for Mr Ridley. Ms Yaxley indicated that a commonly available paper, Reflex Bond 80 gsm, was used for the job. When asked whether a template such as that used for the job could be re-used, they both were of the opinion that those templates are not made for re-use and in fact it would be completely impracticable to try to do so particularly once the template had dried. The pale green substance, which was evident on the sample ballot paper shown to them, was identified as the electrostatic solution used in the printing process. They indicated that an efficient printer could cull sheets with such solution on them. The printing process was described as follows- After the template is made up it is placed on the printing machine and a number of sheets run through to obtain a good print. A normal job would probably involve 30 to 40 sheets being treated as ``set-up'' copies or ``spoils'' before the desired print was obtained. After the last ``set-up'' copy was printed the numerical counter on the machine would be set to the number required for the job. The operator would then watch during the print run and cull any spoils such as copies badly printed or containing electrostatic solution. At the end of the run the operator would then count how many sheets were culled and reprint a corresponding number to ensure the correct total number is printed. The total number of sheets is not then actually counted but the machine is accurate to about 1%. Despite initially indicating that she remembered the particular job, Ms Yaxley could not remember how many ``set-up'' copies were printed prior to the start of the run, could not remember making a second template and additionally therefore, the reason for so doing, and could not remember how many sheets were culled during the actual printing process or how many extra sheets were subsequently printed. An examination of the order book indicated that 6 reams of paper totalling 3000 sheets were ordered for the job. As it was a ``two-up'' job only 2500 sheets of the desired print would have been required. We were informed that the job control sheet for that particular job, which may have shown the exact number of sheets actually used for the job, was no longer available. The guillotining of the sheets was undertaken by the operator. Ms Watson indicated that the figure of 5000 contained in her ``certificate'' of 11 December 1987 was obtained from the job invoice, it was not a figure arrived at by physically counting the papers provided. ANNEXURE II Short notes of discussion between Mr R. Ridley, Mr D. Small, Mr. I. McLeod and Mr H. Asher on 11 February 1988. Mr Ridley was asked to recall the printing of the ballot papers. He was asked to again explain the circumstances which led to a second template being prepared during the printing process. He replied that the first template was damaged in some way and produced faulty copies and as the printing operator (Ms Yaxley) could not remedy the problem she had decided to make another template. He could not remember at what stage of the printing run this was done or how many spoilt copies had been produced leading up to that decision being made. When asked whether he could indicate how many ``spoils'' were printed prior to the start of the run and during the complete run, he said he could not honestly answer and that he would only be guessing. He did, however, confirm that the operator did cull a number of papers while the machine was still running. As to the numbers of sheets printed after the original run to compensate for spoils culled, he also replied that he really didn't know. He indicated he did not see Ms Yaxley count the culled sheets and said she must have just made a ``guesstimate''. When asked was it possible that there could have been additional ``spoilt'' papers other than those taken in custody by Mr Asher, from him, on 19 January 1988, Mr Ridley replied ``I couldn't say''. Mr Ridley stated that Ms Yaxley had begun to tear up some spoils and place them in a bin and that he had stopped her and said that in accordance with the rules he had to take everything with him. Mr Ridley and Mr Small were then informed of the examination of the ballot papers and subsequent discovery of indentations, common handwriting, existence of electrostatic solution, etc. Mr Ridley had no real comment to make concerning each of these discoveries. Similarly, he made no real comment when asked who else would have had access to the ballot papers, envelopes and the Returning Officer's stamp during the conduct of the ballot. Mr Small could offer no real explanation in relation to any of the above matters. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(1.34) —I am concerned about a matter of public importance which is of particular concern in my State of Tasmania. I refer first of all to the Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill, or Act as it now is to become, and the guillotine which was pushed through in this chamber earlier today. I had hoped to speak in the committee stage of that legislation because it is a matter in which, as a Tasmanian, I have a particular interest. As a lawyer I also have a particular interest in the rights and liberties of the citizen. I think this legislation is a particularly bad example of the power of the Federal Government riding roughshod over the rights of citizens no matter where they might live. I wish to have it on the record just how this Government has changed its attitude over the last few years to the use of the World Heritage legislation. To demonstrate that, I wish to read into the record excerpts from a speech made in September 1984 by the former Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, the Hon. Barry Cohen, at the National Conference on Conservation and the Economy. He was referring to demands for the Great Barrier Reef, the Kakadu National Park, Lord Howe Island, et cetera, to be placed on the the World Heritage List. He said: At the time of these demands on the Federal Government to use its powers under the Act, the Greater Daintree Area was not on the World Heritage list, nor was it being considered for nomination. Nevertheless, it was argued that the Government, despite this, should act as it was claimed that the area met the World Heritage criteria as being `of outstanding universal value'. I made it clear that the Federal Government would stick to the commitment, made at the time of the passing of the WHPC Act, that it would not use the legislation indiscriminately; that it saw implementation of the Act as a `last resort', and that it would consult with the relevant state before it nominated new areas for inclusion on the World Heritage List. I also stated that we would have to be thoroughly convinced of the unique nature of a proposal before we considered such an area for nomination. I pointed out that the World Heritage List ought not to be simply an extension of the National Estate. In other words, it should remain an exclusive list of the world's unique natural and cultural treasures. I said that I hoped the environment movement would not seek to use the list, and therefore the legislation, as a means of stopping every act of desecration of the environment committed by a state or local government. Attempts to add to the list everything which was merely of `national' value and not unique in a global sense would simply debase the currency. I have no trouble at all in supporting the words used by the former Minister in his speech in 1984. I have great trouble with the way the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act is now being used by the present Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) and the present Government. It seems to me that they are not using the Act as a last resort any more. They are not consulting with the relevant States before nomination, and they are not thoroughly convinced of the unique nature of proposals before nominating areas. I am particularly concerned to see the way they have gone away from that commitment by the former Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Barry Cohen. I also mention my great concern about the powers which are being given to inspectors under the amending legislation that has just passed through the Senate. I draw the Senate's attention to another document which is of great relevance to us in this place-the report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills which was tabled in the Senate yesterday. On the question of these inspectors, the Committee said that it had: consistently drawn the Senate's attention to powers of entry and search possessed by officials and inspectors under a variety of Commonwealth legislation. Included among such officials are customs and taxation officers, and inspectors under primary industries legislation. The Committee is concerned to note the grant of powers of search and entry to another group of officials. The particular concern of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee was the widening of the groups of officials. I do not limit my concern only to that but I certainly think that it is ominous when we have continually widening groups of officials in this country who can enter the private property of citizens without a warrant and without the consent of the owners. In the earlier debate somebody suggested that a large number of former New South Wales State Ministers were looking for jobs and may be eligible for appointment as inspectors. We cannot possibly approve a situation in which people in this country can no longer live peacefully on their own land without intrusion from Commonwealth officials. Every time we open a Bill these days, we find that the Commonwealth is giving more and more people the power to intrude upon the privacy and the private property of citizens of this country. It is totally unacceptable. It is not just the Liberal Party which finds it so. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that Senator Richardson has been well advised of this by several of the councils for civil liberties in this country. I have in front of me a copy of a letter which the Minister received from the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties. I do not intend to quote it at any length, but the entire letter is directed to concerns about the warrant issuing process and the powers given to inspectors. In summing up that letter, I think it is fair to say that the basic concerns of the Council for Civil Liberties go to the need to tighten up the warrant issuing process and to avoid misuse of the powers given under the warrant. The letter states: . . . dangers associated with inspectors being appointed from officers of a public service department who are inexperienced in the need to respect the rights of the citizen and who are not subject to the normal disciplinary procedures that would apply, for example, to a member of the Australian Federal Police. The letter concludes: . . . it is exceedingly important that such a major extension of powers of the state into a new area be subject to the strictest safeguards to prevent misuse of such powers. It is clear that we are not witnessing an hysterical exercise by opponents of this Government. This is very definitely a matter of real concern to anybody who understands how the liberties of the citizens are being continually eroded. It is colourful to say that this is jackboot government, but it is not very far wide of the truth. I say in summing up that I am particularly concerned that there has been such a rude refusal to allow debate in this place. Allegations were made earlier today that the Opposition was filibustering. We believe that these matters are far too-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Newman, you must not reflect on a decision of the Senate. You have been sufficiently general up to date but you must not become particular about a debate that has concluded. Senator NEWMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I certainly have concern about some of the provisions in this legislation. I also have concern that the debate was not given the time necessary for such an important matter. I have particular concern at the general change of approach by this Government to the whole question of World Heritage listing, the protection of World Heritage properties and the enforcement of Commonwealth legislation in relation to World Heritage properties. The actions of the Government today and in the introduction of this legislation are all part of an increasing tendency to ride roughshod over the rights of the citizens of this country. Sitting suspended from 1.43 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Has the Minister been successful in persuading his party, or at least one faction of it, to agree to a $30m injection of private capital for the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC)? If not, what action does the Minister propose to enable the AIDC to obtain the capital it urgently requires? I refer to a report in the Australian Financial Review of 25 February 1988 that the Minister `is expected to raise the possibility of Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) involvement in raising a private injection of funds for the AIDC today'. I ask the Minister to give an assurance to the Senate that, if it is decided to offer part of the AIDC to the private sector, the offer will be made on a competitive basis rather than through a special sweetheart deal with the ACTU and associated superannuation funds. Senator BUTTON —As distinct from the Opposition's 1987 pre-election policy whereby it was committed to the sale of the AIDC, the Government will not sell it. I recall the Press report to which Senator Chaney referred. That was the first I had ever heard of involving ACTU investment in the AIDC. That was not raised with me by the ACTU at the meeting I had with it on the morning of the Press report. It was never in my mind. It was a non-issue. It was the invention of someone or other who perhaps gave that information to a journalist. It has never been considered. With regard to raising additional capital for the AIDC, the Government has not reached a conclusive position as yet. I hope to do so shortly. Senator Chaney asked also whether the capital would be obtained on the open market if not from the Government. The answer to that question is yes. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Has the Minister seen a letter from Mr Arthur Searle of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union Retired Members Association dated 22 March 1988 in today's Sydney Morning Herald claiming that there has been no increase at all in the real value of the pension rate since 1983? Does the Minister agree with that claim? What in fact has happened to the real value of pension rates since 1983? What proportion of average weekly earnings does the pension now represent? Senator BOLKUS —I did indeed see Mr Searle's letter in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald. I note that he represents the Retired Members Association of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, now the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights Union (AMFSU). It is an organisation with which I have had some contact in the past. I was involved in explaining Government policy to its members in South Australia. It is quite apparent from Mr Searle's letter this morning that I or the Minister for Social Security may need to visit that organisation again in order better to explain the impact and the effect of our policies, particularly in the area mentioned in the paper this morning, the value of age pensions. The reality is that the Government is indeed proud of its performance in this area. I inform the Senate that, contrary to Mr Searle's understanding, pensions have increased in both real and unadjusted terms since 1983. In real terms pensions have increased by 8.3 per cent since 1983. In unadjusted terms the increase has been 15.3 per cent. It should be noted that because of those increases pensions now represent almost 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. In the December 1987 quarter pensions represented 24.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. It should be noted further in this context that in 1983 when this Government was elected, pensions represented only 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. Those figures are not meaningless because when one looks at the increase in average weekly earnings during this period and compares it with the increase in pensions during the same period, one sees that pensions have increased by 50.3 per cent, whereas average weekly earnings have increased by 38.3 per cent. So, there has been an increase in both real and unadjusted terms. It should also be remembered that the Government has adopted a policy of indexing the purchasing power of pensions according to the consumer price index. Mr Searle, and possibly Senator Chaney, may need to understand that the Government has also taken other measures to assist age pensioners. Honourable senators should remember that rent assistance has been increased by 50 per cent, that single age pensioners can now earn an extra $40 a week before their pensions are reduced, and that married pensioners can earn an extra $70 a week. From January this year pensioners will be able to retain fringe benefits for three months despite their income having risen by up to 25 per cent above the limit. Also, despite the cynicism of honourable senators opposite, it should be remembered that the earnings credit reform of the Government will allow pensioners to earn extra income without losing their current entitlements. In closing I should say that the Government's actions so far are not the end of its commitment to pensioners. We are considering a social security review with a view to assisting age pensioners further. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. I preface the question by referring to the disgraceful action of the Government in the Senate this morning in gagging and guillotining debate upon the heritage legislation, with the shameful assistance of the Australian Democrats. Will the Minister confirm that, as revealed in a letter to him from his Labor Party colleague Mr Eaton, who I understand is the Queensland shadow Minister for land management and forestry, members of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland were not consulted about the boundaries of the World Heritage area in the north Queensland rain- forest? Did the Minister fail to involve Australian Labor Party members of the State Parliament on the basis that it would be more even-handed to treat all those who disagreed with his plans with equal contempt-a contempt, I repeat, manifested in the Government's gagging this morning of debate on legislation central to the concerns of Mr Eaton as well as to those of many others in this place and elsewhere? Why, as Mr Eaton is reported to have said in his letter to the Minister, did the Federal Government consult in secret and only with conservationists about the boundaries of the proposed World Heritage listing area? Finally, will the Government reconsider its position on this matter and, as urged by the coalition parties in this place, by the Queensland Labor Party and, above all, by the people of north Queensland, adopt bound- aries and a management strategy that will adequately protect a great Australian inheritance without putting at risk the jobs of thousands of workers in the timber and associated industries? Senator Walsh —It was a long question. Senator RICHARDSON —It was a long question, but I will endeavour to do my best. First off, I am being berated about the so-called disgraceful acts of this morning, for the attempt to gag the debate. I would like to point out to Senator Stone and to other honourable senators opposite that overall there were 12 hours of debate on the motion that the Bill be read a second time and five hours in the committee stage-a total of 17 hours. How many Bills ever go through this place after 17 hours of debate? How many Bills are debated for that long? I suggest that it almost never happens. Having responded to the first remarks made by Senator Stone, I turn to Senator Stone's question about a letter from Mr Eaton. I have not read that letter from Bill Eaton. It arrived in my office this morning. I have been a little busy this morning although perhaps Senator Stone has not noticed. I did not get around to reading that letter because I was attempting to answer Senator Stone's and other honourable senators' questions in the committee stage of the debate and, if I might say so, doing rather well. However, that has meant that I have not got around to reading the letter. However, I think that I can gather from the tone of Senator Stone's question what Mr Eaton said in the letter. I am asked about consultations in Queensland and whether I consulted people only in the Australian Labor Party or whether I treated everyone with equal contempt. Far from it. In fact, our consultation processes were as open as they could possibly be. There was a two-month period-- Senator Parer —Who with? Senator RICHARDSON —Any member of the public in Queensland or, indeed, in Australia-even Senator Parer-could have sent to me a submission on the boundaries. It was because of the submissions on the boundaries that we received that the final boundaries announced after that two-month period in fact differed from the indicative boundary that had been announced some months earlier. It was because we had a consultation process and because we listened to members of the public that we did it. Senator Walters —Didn't the Labor Party put in a submission? Senator RICHARDSON —It is never possible in an exercise of this scope to please everyone. No exercise in the world would ever please Senator Walters. Certainly I hope that I am never party to one. It is not possible to please everyone. At times there have been a number of people in my Party who have disagreed with me. I might even say that they have disagreed with me on other issues. However, I have had to bear that. I have had to live under the yoke of it at times. Senator Cook —That was never the case. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Cook assures me that it has never been the case. However, in Queensland I know that the only forum of the Labor Party to have met and discussed the issue was the State Council which overwhelmingly endorsed my position. I have no doubt that if it meets again it will do the same thing. I understand where Bill Eaton's concerns would lie. I can always understand people doing what they believe is best for their constituents. However, on this occasion if Mr Eaton has said some of the things Senator Stone claims he has said, he is wrong. This is a democracy and Bill Eaton and anyone else has a right to be wrong. I was asked whether we would adopt different boundaries or different management strategies. The reality is, as I said, that the boundaries have been announced and the nomination has proceeded and as there was a long consultation period we, therefore, have no intention of changing them. In regard to the question of management strategy, I shall be suggesting to Cabinet in the next few weeks what I believe to be an appropriate management strategy. That will form the basis for discussions with the Queensland Government. I and all other members of the Government are anxious for those discussions to take place with Queensland, and to take place soon. To that end I have been in contact with Premier Ahern's office and a date has been set for our first meeting. I will take great delight in informing the Senate of the results of progress with Premier Ahern. Senator GIETZELT —I ask whether the Minister for Transport and Communications has seen the report of a speech by the President of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr John Elliott, yesterday at a lunch organised by the American Chamber of Commerce in which, among other things, Mr Elliott attacked the development of a multicultural Australia and the introduction of multicultural television. Is it not a fact that this is the second time in the last 10 days that Mr Elliott has dealt with such an issue in such a way? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I saw the report in this morning's Australian Financial Review-a report which was obtained, I understand, despite the efforts of Mr Elliott to exclude the media from yesterday's lunch in Melbourne. At that lunch Mr Elliott reportedly not only developed his views on taxation which have caused so much heartache in the ranks opposite in the last couple of days but also described-- Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The question in its terms obviously raises no matter relevant to the Government's administration at all. It asks no more from the Minister than his comment on Mr Elliott and how many times he has made certain statements. It seems to me that quite clearly that has nothing to do with the Minister's administration. He should therefore not be permitted to answer the question, which should be ruled out of order in total. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The question did cover the matter of multicultural television and other activities which are relevant to Senator Evans's portfolio. Of course, he should confine himself to matters for which he is responsible. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Deputy President, I will be delighted to do so because they are very revealing indeed of the sort of person who is now purporting to lead, outside the parliamentary party, the Liberal Party in this country. At the lunch in question Mr Elliott repeated the remarks that were attributed to him in London the other day, which were the subject of some comment by me in this place, when he described the development of a multicultural Australia and, specifically, the introduction of multicultural television, the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), as being `a major step backwards'. These comments come hard on the heels of Mr Elliott's speech in London in which it will be recalled he called for Australia to move to a limited democracy, he attacked the Aboriginal population and asserted again that migrants coming to Australia should not seek to maintain cultural differences. What these comments made on two occasions in recent days amount to is nothing less than a campaign by the President of the Liberal Party against the ethnic communities of Australia. Clearly, Mr Elliott is not merely xenophobic but is harbouring deep-seated prejudices against anyone that does not conform to his own particular perception of a stereotypical Caucasian Australian. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Evans, you are straying away from your portfolio. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Deputy President, I am indebted to you for having reminded me-- Senator Puplick —Tell us about Unsworth's comments about `going back to where he came from'. Senator GARETH EVANS —Look what happened to Mr Unsworth. Look what will happen to Mr Elliott when he persists in this particular attack which is manifestly as misconceived as another that I can think of in recent times. These sorts of attacks on the ethnic population of Australia provide a very disturbing insight into the kind of society that we would have under a future Liberal government, either one headed by Mr Elliott, as is manifestly his ambition, or one in which he retained his status as the President of it. However, the point I particularly want to make is that what is even more disturbing than these remarks being made and repeated in recent days is that we have not heard a word, not a squeak, from the Opposition Leader, Mr Howard, the communications spokesman, Senator Messner, or, indeed, anyone else on the conservative side of politics to distance themselves from these tasteless, insensitive and thoroughly prejudiced remarks. Unlike the consumption tax issue when Mr Howard described Mr Elliott's views as restating a personal view, we have not heard anything expressed in those terms on the multiculturalism issue. We have not heard Mr Howard saying in relation to multiculturalism or SBS television that he and Mr Elliott do not have to sing like choirboys on that issue. The only conclusion that one can possibly draw from all of that is that Mr Howard's and Mr Elliott's views are not different in these matters and that they do sing like choirboys when it comes to their perception of the role of multiculturalism and multicultural television. The Liberal and National parties should be condemned by the entire Australian community, not merely the ethnic communities, for their implicit endorsement of Mr Elliott's comments and, indeed, for allowing him to remain as their national President. Senator MACKLIN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health to recent reports about the effectiveness of the drug AZT in overseas and Australian clinical trials in which it has been shown to alter the course of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and prolong the life of people affected by it. First, who is currently funding the trial program using AZT in Australia and where does the Minister believe that the responsibility for future funding lies? Secondly, when will a final decision be made between the Federal and State governments in respect of the inclusion of AZT funding under the Medicare arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States? Finally, will the Minister give an assurance that the Commonwealth Government will bear the cost of AZT treatment for patients who are eligible to receive it under the present trial criteria until such time as the Federal-State agreements have been concluded and the drug's availability under Medicare is determined? Senator COOK —Senator Macklin asked me three questions. I will take them-- Senator Haines —At least we now know that you can count. Senator COOK —At least honourable senators know that I can count up to three. I have a big surprise for them; I can count a lot more than that. I will deal with the three questions in order. Clinical evaluation of AZT, involving some 200 patients around Australia, is being funded on a dollar for dollar cost share basis between the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories. The Commonwealth Government has undertaken to contribute $1m to this program in the 1987-88 financial year. The provision of AZT to public hospital patients is the responsibility of the States, as the primary providers of health care, through the public hospital system. Currently, AZT can be provided only through a hospital and specialist regimen. It is the responsibility of the States, in the context of administering their public hospital systems, to provide the necessary drugs for public patients in hospitals and hospital outpatients. The Commonwealth does not provide special funding for other drugs supplied to patients in the public hospital system. As to Senator Macklin's second question on when a final decision will be made, this issue was discussed by the Health Ministers at the Australian Health Ministers conference held on 7 and 8 March this year. The Commonwealth is preparing a paper on the principles for renegotiation of a revised Medicare agreement to incorporate AIDS treatment and the provision of AZT. This will be considered by Health Ministers at a special conference in May this year before the Premiers Conference. As to the third question, whether we will give some assurance that the Commonwealth will bear the cost, the Commonwealth has already provided $1m for clinical trials in 1987-88, as I detailed in the earlier part of my answer. Funding for AZT beyond the scope of this arrangement is a matter for the State and Territory administrations. Senator AULICH —My question is to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer to the concern expressed by unions and management in the Australian cement industry about the potential for dumping of cheap imports. The Minister would be aware that, for several months, representatives from the industry have voiced these concerns through the media and in meetings with Federal Ministers and members. I ask the Minister what action he intends to take to ensure that the cement industry is given a fair chance to compete and grow. Senator BUTTON —In recent months a number of problems have been raised in respect of the cement industry. The first is-- Senator Stone —The main problem is that no more boots are being made in New South Wales. Senator BUTTON —Senator Stone's interjection is one entirely of his own making. I will pass it on to the cement industry for its consideration. For the past nine months or so there have been complaints about the potential dumping of imported cement, imported cement generally, threats to employment in the industry, and so on. I am very aware of these concerns expressed by the industry. On a number of occasions in recent months I have met with industry representatives. Other members of Parliament have also met with unions and management from the industry. There are two current allegations affecting the cement industry. Firstly, in respect of cement clinker in Western Australia, the Australian Customs Service has initiated a formal investigation and officers are visiting affected firms this week to collect evidence. That is in respect of the dumping complaint. The second-if I might use this expression in this context-concrete case involves cement which is proposed for importation into Victoria. The industry lodged applications for anti-dumping protection late last year, but the evidence provided by the companies was deficient in a number of respects. The Australian Customs Service has advised the industry of the nature of the shortcomings in the material provided and has had several meetings with affected parties. The Australian Customs Service now awaits a revised application from the companies. However, in spite of these matters being processed in recognition of industry concerns, I announced recently the establishment of a tripartite committee to evaluate current problems of the industry and future directions. Senator Lewis —Another delaying mechanism. Senator BUTTON —I have also asked the Bureau of Industry Economics (BIE) to do a little study on the competitiveness of the industry, the appropriateness of its technology, investment in the industry, and so on. The committee will comprise five people-two drawn from the industry, two from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and me or my representative. It is to be formed after consultation with industry representatives in Canberra over the last few months. The committee will be able to consult widely, assess the current competitive position and monitor the progress of the industry on a range of issues. Specifically, the committee, in consultation with relevant State governments, will monitor the progress and outcome of dumping complaints lodged by the industry, monitor the progress of the BIE study, evaluate the need to restructure the industry and evaluate the question of labour adjustment. The committee will report to Federal and State governments, as appropriate, on the committee's consideration of these matters and may advise the Federal Government as to whether the industry should be referred to the Industries Assistance Commission for inquiry. Those steps have been taken to try to alleviate what is a difficult situation. I would not want to say publicly what my views are about some of the tactics adopted by parties involved in this matter, but-- Senator Chaney —You don't approve of dumping bags of cement on people's doorsteps. Senator BUTTON —No, I do not; or on Japanese consulate doorsteps. Senator Lewis —Are you looking after any of your mates? Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis has interpolated in my answer to the question which the good senator from Tasmania so astutely asked me. Senator Chaney —Do you mean the well-known one? Senator BUTTON —No. I know him very well. I was going to call him Senator Beijing because he is on a learning curve about Peking duck. I was tempted to call him that, but I decided not to do so. Senator Aulich asked a very astute question and as I gave an informed answer, Senator Lewis interjected persistently. As Opposition spokesman on industry matters, he is not interested in solutions to industry problems, regrettably. He is just-- Senator Lewis —You are deferring the whole matter. Senator BUTTON —Perhaps Senator Lewis will make a speech in the adjournment debate explaining how he would deal with this issue. Government senators-No! Senator BUTTON —Nobody has to stay and listen. My God, what a dreadful-- Government senators interjecting- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections from the Government benches. Senator BUTTON —It is shocking behaviour by those on the Government benches! I remind them, because clearly they have not thought of this, that none of them would have to stay to listen to Senator Lewis speaking on the adjournment. I would stay because, as distinct from Senator Lewis, I am a man of diligence. I am even prepared to listen to him. Senator TAMBLING —My question is to the Minister for Justice. Is it a fact that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) is investigating allegations that a Japanese businessman involved in the purchase of the Burswood Island Resort Hotel and Casino in Perth owns hotels in Japan which are often used by gangsters for meetings and celebrations? Has the Minister noted the comment by a senior official of the company, headed by Mr Hidemi Sasaki, that, even when told by police that intending guests are gangsters, it does not refuse them hotel bookings because, and I quote, `Yes, we are afraid of them'? Is the Minister concerned that this refusal by Mr Sasaki to stand up to gangsters in his own country might be translated into a compliant attitude towards criminal elements in Australia? What information does the Minister have about the way in which Mr Sasaki operates his hotels in Japan? I ask the Minister to ensure, on this occasion, that he provides the Senate with all the AFP information in his possession. Does he believe that the company involved, and its principal, are suitable purchasers of the casino, particularly as it is a casino frequented by the Australian Prime Minister for special rules gambling and for mingling with a strange assortment of patrons? Senator TATE —I have no knowledge of any Australian Federal Police (AFP) investigation into the Japanese business consortium which is seeking-I think this is what the honourable senator indicated-a management role or an ownership role in the Burswood Casino. I know nothing of any such AFP report being prepared, and certainly nothing of its contents. As to the remarks attributed to a senior official of the Japanese company, of course I am equally unaware of those. As to whether I formed any opinion whether the company concerned or its senior management would be suitable to operate a casino, clearly, given the previous answers, I am in no position to form such a judgment. If the AFP is indeed preparing a report, I will seek further advice from it as to what might be properly put into the public domain. I will do this if, as I say, it is compiling such a report. Senator TAMBLING —I ask a supplementary question. I draw the Minister's attention to an article in the Sun of today's date which states: Federal Police are investigating a report that Japanese gangsters are frequenting hotels owned by Japanese businessmen . . . A spokesman said yesterday they want to speak to Japanese police about it. When does the Minister anticipate that he would receive a brief if such action is in fact taking place and that there are relationships between the Australian Federal Police and the Japanese police on this matter? Senator TATE —I thank Senator Tambling for drawing my attention to a report in the Sun. I do not know whether it is the Brisbane Sun. I will certainly follow up the indication given by that report. I do not know whether it is true or not. Senator DEVLIN —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald headlined `Promises the Government is likely to hold itself to'? What are the implications for the national economy of the promises made by the new Government in New South Wales in the course of the recent State election campaign? Will the Commonwealth Government provide any additional funding to New South Wales to ensure that these promises can be met? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article-I do not think it appeared today; it was published, I think, a couple of days ago-in which it was reported that Mr Greiner has said that the new Government in New South Wales will stand by the promises that it made in the period up to the election. Those promises total additional expenditure of something more than $1.4 billion. I have been asked-and I am sure that I can answer this with supreme confidence that the Treasurer will endorse and agree entirely with what I say-whether the Commonwealth Government will be providing any financial assistance to the new Government in New South Wales to meet those spending commitments. The answer is the same after the election as it was before the election-definitely not. The people of New South Wales who voted in the Greiner Government will have to live with the consequences of that. I believe that the preferred consequence would be just a quick and clean repudiation of everything that it promised in the last 12 months. This would be the quickest and cleanest thing to do. Of course, the numerically dominant Liberal Party in the coalition Government in New South Wales will not do that because, as usual, the National Party tail will be wagging the Liberal Party dog. I refer specifically to one of the promises put out during the runup to the New South Wales election. The Deputy Premier elect promised to allocate, hypothecate, for road maintenance and construction all of the State petrol tax. That entails an increase of $180m of spending on roads. A road funding lobby has been wandering around Parliament House this morning, trying to get some more money from the Federal Government for roads. What I suggest that it do as far as New South Wales is concerned is to go along to Mr Greiner and Mr Murray and say, `We want that $180m for road construction that you promised in New South Wales'. That will be more than the industry could responsibly or sensibly gear itself up to spend. So there is no need to worry at a Commonwealth level about road funding for New South Wales because there is going to be stacks of it if this promise is honoured. I mention just a couple of other items. The coalition promised to halve the public housing waiting list in New South Wales over five years. That would cost $150m. It promised an extra $100m a year, maintained in real terms, for additional housing loans. Just in those three items, we are up to something over $400m of the $1.4 billion. Finally, may I give a bit of gratuitous advice to Mr Greiner: if he wants to have a decent government he should follow Charlie Court's example in Western Australia and roll right over the National Party, just kick it in the stomach and take absolutely no notice of it and the fiscal and political irresponsibility that it habitually displays, because the National Party has nowhere else to go. I give Greiner that bit of gratuitous advice. If he follows it he might be a successful Premier. But I guarantee that he will not because, just like every other State and Federal Liberal Party Leader that I know of, except, as I said before, Charlie Court, he will not have the intestinal fortitude to do it. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Yesterday the Minister boasted about the export of motor vehicles and components. Will these exports be subsidised by Australian consumers by the operation of the passenger motor vehicle plan, and, in particular, the export facilitation scheme? If so, by how much? Will the vehicles and components be sold to the foreign purchasers at prices no lower than the Australian wholesale prices? Senator BUTTON —I think I should put the question in context. If Senator Lewis reads the Hansard, I think he will agree that it is an unfair characterisation to say that I boasted about export sales in respect of the passenger motor vehicle industry. The expression I used was that the Government greets these figures with cautious optimism. I would have hoped that the honourable senator would have done the same thing. I do not regard that as a boast; I regard it as a proper statement of fact. We can have cautious optimism about those sales. The other context in which I would like to put the honourable senator's question is that this week he has been pursuing me about subsidy schemes for exports generally. He has been saying to me, `Look, you have delayed the payments in terms of subsidies under the export market development grants scheme'. The honourable senator has been on radio stations throughout Australia saying what a shocking thing it is that this Government has been delaying subsidies for exporters. He has been making a big fellow of himself on a radio program talking about that sort of stuff. He then comes in here and asks me whether there is to be a subsidy. Senator Chaney —He wants to know. Is there? Senator BUTTON —Of course he wants to know. But in this case Senator Lewis needs to be helped with the learning process because that process is very important. I would have thought that Senator Lewis has to put his question in some sort of context. I just want to explain that to him. I now turn to two issues in answer to the specific question. Sure, exports of motor vehicles and exports of components are subsidised to an extent under the export facilitation programs relating to the motor vehicle plan. The nature of the subsidy is somewhat different from the nature of the subsidies which are provided in other industries. The nature of the subsidy is simply that those companies which achieve certain export targets are allowed duty free entry of either motor vehicles or components into Australia in return for that export achievement. It is a slightly different sort of subsidy from the subsidies which often apply to exports. That is to say, there is a performance target directed at the exporters in order that they may attain certain benefits under the provisions of the export facilitation scheme. So the answer to that part of the question is yes, there is a subsidy. Any subsidy for any industry is in some way or another a cost to the Australian consumer. There is no doubt about that. One can go through the list industry by industry and reach the same conclusion. On the question of whether components will be sold on foreign markets at a particular price, that is very much a commercial matter for the companies concerned in their negotiations with foreign buyers. Certainly, in terms of the price they arrive at, Australian companies will have the benefit of getting a subsidy in respect of their own import activities into Australia, as I have already explained. Of course, that will be a factor in enabling them to determine the price of their exported goods. Apart from that, all I can say is that this is a matter for determination between the two parties to any commercial agreement. Senator LEWIS —I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister not like the Opposition spokesman getting up his nostrils? Senator BUTTON —All I can say to Senator Lewis is that I wish he would. If he would do so occasionally Question Time would not be so boring. Perhaps the honourable senator should try next week and see how he goes. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer to a succession of recent Press reports suggesting that Israel, India and Taiwan have acquired or are capable of acquiring nuclear weapons. In the light of these disturbing reports, can the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will continue its efforts to prevent the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons? Is the Minister aware that Palm Sunday rallies in support of peace and nuclear disarmament will be held across the country this Sunday? Will the Government continue to encourage community groups which are genuinely committed to arms control and disarmament? Senator GARETH EVANS —In addition to its efforts to achieve a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the nuclear weapons states, Australia is one of the foremost supporters of international action to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries. The keystone of the current non-proliferation regime is of course the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) which came into force in 1970. With more than 130 members committed to preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons the NPT is one of the landmarks of international arms control efforts. Australia continues to take all available opportunities in international forums to support the aims of the Treaty and to urge those few countries which remain non-members to adhere to it. There has been increasing public attention recently and frequent reports in the Press about the nuclear activities of the so-called threshold states-those countries with unsafeguarded nuclear facilities believed to be capable of producing nuclear weapons. Certainly, those reports are causing the Government great concern. Prominent among the countries in question are Israel, India, Pakistan and South Africa. Development of nuclear weapons by any such country would provide an incentive for all countries which feel threatened by those weapons to go down the same path. So the nuclear arms race begins-a race which threatens not only the region in which it takes place but also, of course, all humanity. Australia has urged, and will go on urging, all the threshold states to join the NPT or at least to place all their nuclear facilities under full scope safeguards as the best means of assuring their neighbours and the international community of the peaceful intent of their nuclear activities. There is of course no question of exporting Australian uranium to such countries. Thus, Australia is playing a major part in international efforts to strengthen and extend the international nuclear non-proliferation regime by increasing the obstacles to such countries acquiring nuclear weapons. All along, the Government has emphasised that efforts against the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons are just as important as measures of arms control and disarmament which we also pursue as a matter of top priority. In that respect we are certainly heartened, as I hope all Australians are, by the current progress in the superpower arms control negotiations on deep cuts in their nuclear arsenals and wider international efforts on chemical and other weapons. We are very proud to be contributing to those developments. As to the remaining part of Senator Childs's question, the Government recognises and applauds the Palm Sunday rallies to be held around the country at the weekend. They reflect a clear desire for peace on the part of Australian people. The Government's ongoing initiatives in the fields of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation stem from and reflect the overwhelming support which the Australian people have manifested in the past and will continue to manifest, particularly on such occasions as the Palm Sunday rallies for the cause of global peace. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Why were telexes from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) contingent on Cyprus sent to the Soviet Embassy in Canberra? How many telexes were sent; on what subjects; and over what period? Were all of the messages in normal language or were some in code? If, as claimed in one news report two days ago, the Soviet Embassy always sends back messages advising the sender of the error, why was the mistake not realised until the arrival in Australia of an officer whose request for compassionate leave went astray? Does the Australian Federal Police use the telex system for communicating sensitive or secret information? What safety procedures does it follow to ensure that messages sent this way arrive at their proper destination? Does the Minister agree that it is very disturbing that police information can be so easily misdirected? Finally, what action will the Minister take to ensure that this ceases to occur? Senator TATE —I am not sure that I made a note of all the elements in the question but I can inform the Senate and Senator Teague that it is true that a number of cables from the Australian Federal Police contingent in Cyprus were mistakenly sent to the Soviet Embassy in Australia instead of AFP headquarters. The mistake was originally made due to the similarity in telex numbers for the two organisations and it was then repeated by the operator. The cables in question dealt with routine administrative matters only and were sent through the signals unit of the United Nations force in Cyprus. There is no substance to the Press reports and rumour that the Soviet Embassy replied to the telexes. The Australian Federal Police informs me that there are few sensitive messages sent between its contingent in Cyprus and Australia, such sensitive messages being forwarded through the Australian High Commission in Cyprus. Steps have been taken to ensure that such mistakes do not recur. In fact, I held conversations with the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mr Peter McAulay, only two nights ago concerning this matter and sought his assurances in regard to that question. Senator TEAGUE —Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I would be grateful if the remaining questions could be taken on notice and answered. With regard to the Minister's reference to the telex numbers, can he make it quite clear to the Senate that the apparent excuse which was given-that there was a one-digit difference in telex numbers-can be put to rest? The Soviet Embassy's telex number-I think the Minister can confirm this-is 62602. The numbers for the Australian Federal Police are 62346, 61623, 62001, 62004, 61313 and 62736. There is not a one-digit difference in these numbers but several digits which are different. Senator TATE —I have made no statement to this Senate saying that there was only a one-digit difference in the telex numbers. I will repeat what I said: I said it was `due to a similarity in the telex numbers for the two organisations'. Obviously, I will take up the matter of the number of digits difference in the two telex reception numbers and I will publish that information if it is relevant. Senator VALLENTINE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade aware of the recently published book Punishing the Poor by Eva Mysliwiec commissioned by the international aid consortium working with Khmer people in Kampuchea and on the Thai-Kampuchea border and which calls for international efforts to work towards a negotiated solution on Kampuchea? Will the Minister pursue and support the recommendations in this book Punishing the Poor? More specifically, will the Minister explain what conditions remain to be fulfilled for the Australian Government to recognise the state of Kampuchea and to restore bilateral aid to that country? Finally, will the Minister explain what Australia is doing now to further international efforts towards a political settlement of the Kampuchean dilemma? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is aware of the book to which Senator Vallentine refers. He has drawn it to my attention and he has suggested that I make the following comments in relation to the quite significant recommendations made in that book which cover the range of matters to which Senator Vallentine refers. Firstly, as to the provision of aid, Australia is conscious of the intense suffering and deprivation of the Kampuchean people over and extended period. We provide aid to the Kampuchean people through multilateral agencies and Australian non-government organisations. In 1987-88 Australian aid donations to these agencies for work inside Kampuchea is expected to reach approximately $3.7m. Australian aid is provided on the basis of humanitarian considerations and is directed to meeting essential civilian requirements of basic shelter, sufficient food and water, primary health care and education. As to the Khmer Rouge, Australians were deeply shocked by the atrocities committed by the Pol Pot regime. In the view of many countries, including Australia, the Pol Pot clique's continued presence within the coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea is a significant impediment to finding a solution to the dispute in that country. During the 1986-87 Association of South East Asian Nations post-ministerial meetings, Mr Hayden raised the question of establishing a tribunal to determine the culpability of the Pol Pot leadership. Whilst some interest was shown in that proposal, it has not to date attracted sufficient support to allow it to go ahead. Australia is firmly of the view that any settlement in Kampuchea must include arrangements to prevent the return to power of the Pol Pot group. As to the question of the Thai-Kampuchea border, as a result of the dry season military campaigning along the border in early 1985, about 230,000 civilians were evacuated into Thailand. They have been provided with temporary sanctuary in camps administered by the Thai supreme command in cooperation with the United Nations Border Relief Organisation (UNBRO). The location of the camps in Thailand is a matter for the Thai authorities. UNBRO coordinates relief measures for the evacuees while the International Committee of the Red Cross has prime responsibility for protection. Australia has provided $750,000 to UNBRO in 1987-88 and further proposals for relief on the Thai-Kampuchean border are under consideration. In relation to settlement prospects, Australia has been encouraged by recent signs of movement on the Kampuchea issue. We maintain close contacts with the parties involved in the dispute and encourage all efforts directed towards dialogue and a peaceful resolution of the issue. Most recently, Australia did welcome Prince Sihanouk's discussion with Hun Sen as a small first step towards settlement negotiations. Mr Hayden sent a message of support to Prince Sihanouk after that first round of talks. Bilateral aid will not be resumed until a negotiated settlement has brought about a peaceful, durable solution to the Kampuchean problem. However, Australian aid is provided under the auspices of multilateral and non-government agencies. I have already given an outline of Australia's efforts to promote movement towards a peaceful settlement. Finally, under Australia's new recognition policy, which involves the recognition of states, not of governments, the question of the recognition of any particular government in Kampuchea simply does not arise. We remain of the view that no existing Kampuchean faction has a legitimate claim to acceptance as the representative of Kampuchea. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Is the Minister for Transport and Communications aware that the percentage of fuel tax revenue spent on improving roads has dropped from 67 per cent in 1984-85 to just 27 per cent in 1987-88, which is the lowest it has been for the past 50 years? Can the Minister explain the reasoning behind such a drop in funding when the tax on fuel is automatically increased in line with the consumer price index? Will the Minister give an assurance that the percentage of fuel tax revenue allocated to all roads, not just highways, will be increased from the present 5.355c a litre to at least 7c a litre to enable the condition of country roads throughout Australia to be improved? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will take that question on notice. I cannot remember enough about the subject from the previous portfolio I held. Mr Morris is handling it these days. I want to give Senator Bjelke-Petersen a decent answer and I am sure she will appreciate that. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to media reports of an apparent turnabout by the Queensland Government over uniform gun laws? Was the thrust of this legislation, aimed at helping to prevent unlawful killings, agreed upon last week by all States except Tasmania-including Queensland? Was the Queensland Police Minister, Mr Gunn, totally supportive of the thrust of the proposed legislation? Was any verbal or written agreement obtained from Mr Gunn on this point? What will be the effect on the gun law legislation of Queensland Premier Michael Ahern's apparent pragmatic about-face which now apparently links Queensland with Tasmania as the only State governments in opposition to the measure? Senator TATE —I was somewhat astonished to read Press reports to the effect that the Queensland Government, and specifically the Premier, Mr Ahern, had repudiated the resolutions passed by the Australian Police Ministers Council in which I clearly understood that Mr Gunn, the Police Minister and Deputy Premier, had concurred. If one reads the media release issued after the special meeting of the Australian Police Ministers Council last Friday afternoon, which Press release was issued under the authority of Mr Gunn, one will see he says this: The resolutions will form the basis for the implementation of uniform firearms controls and will lead hopefully to a more responsible community attitude towards the use of firearms. That is a direct quote attributed in the Press release to Mr Gunn. When one looks at the resolutions listed in that Press release one finds, for example, that Queensland supported the resolution to support the banning of all automatic firearms and to support the restriction of access to semi-automatic firearms to a limited category of authorised users having a legitimate occupation or sporting need to possess such firearms, including members of approved sporting shooting clubs for use in approved competitive events. Queensland also agreed that strict licensing or other forms of lawful control should apply to the possession of firearms and that licences and/or permits to purchase should be issued subject to the requirement that the person is deemed to be a fit and proper person to possess a firearm, is able to demonstrate a genuine reason for possessing the firearm and is able to demonstrate competence in firearm safety and knowledge of firearms law in the jurisdiction. Again, Queensland agreed that before people may purchase firearms they must obtain permits to purchase them, and the Council noted the desirability of a cooling off period between the issue of the permit and the first purchase. Again, in relation to registration, Queensland agreed-only Tasmania dissenting on this point as I recall-that all firearms purchased after a date to be agreed by Council at its meeting on 25 November 1988 should be recorded by an appropriate authority in each jurisdiction. I have taken some time to read those resolutions and Mr Gunn's accompanying comment in his Press release because it is quite clear that there has been either a confusion, a misunderstanding or a deliberate turnaround by the Queensland Government since the meeting on Friday. The Brisbane Sun of 24 March-today-in an editorial says: The Media releases on the subject were quite clear. What happened is that Mr Gunn either got caught up in the fervour of the moment and agreed to something without checking with the boss or both he and Mr Ahern changed their minds after sleeping on it. I am not necessarily going to go that far. I believe the Australian Police Ministers Council-at least a majority, Tasmania dissenting on most points-attempted to use language and to give as much flexibility to Queensland as was consistent with achieving the objective of an Australia-wide approach to the question of gun control. For that reason we were not wedded to any particular language and certainly were not looking for identical legislation in each jurisdiction. If a particular jurisdiction does not want to use the words `licence', `permit' or `registration' that is quite beside the point. One is not seeking that at all. What one is seeking is that the substance of those resolutions be incorporated in the statutory and regulatory arrangements in each jurisdiction. I believe the Queensland Government, with its particular emphasis on permits to purchase, the accompanying requirements before a permit to purchase can be obtained and the recording of that permit to purchase together with a sales docket where a purchase has occurred in reliance on the permit, would have in fact satisfied those resolutions. I believe that Queensland can work within that framework. Also, I believe that the Police Minister for New South Wales will be appointed this afternoon, and I look forward to conversations with him. Without the incoming New South Wales Government adopting every element of the Unsworth proposals on gun controls, I feel that it may find itself able to work within the resolutions of the Australian Police Ministers Council. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Durack asked me a series of questions in relation to the extension of the civil coastal surveillance contract, which I answer as follows: First, has the Government paid Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd $1.2m for the extension of the contract? The answer is no. However, the Government has agreed to pay Skywest $1.284m to reimburse costs incurred by Skywest in bringing its coastal surveillance fleet back to the same standard which applied prior to its being notified in March 1987 that its contract would not be renewed. Following notification that its contract would not be renewed, Skywest had disposed of one aircraft and committed three others to another contract commencing after 12 September 1987. The reimbursement costs in question were assessed by the Department in conjunction with an independent assessor, Price Waterhouse and Urwick, as being fair and reasonable. The second question was: What has Skywest spent this money on? As indicated in my previous answer, the Government has not yet paid the sum mentioned. The costs for refurbishing aircraft are currently being met by Skywest and include the purchase of special communications and navigation equipment, painting to coastwatch livery, drop hatches and bubble windows. The third question was: Is Skywest using only eight aircraft? The answer is no. I understand that Skywest currently has 12 serviceable aircraft on line with one more coming on line at the end of this month, when equipment refurbishment is completed. The fourth question was: Is this in accord with the terms of the interim contract? The answer is that this is not applicable in light of my answer to the previous question. The final question was: Is the figure of eight aircraft the same number that Amann Aviation Pty Ltd had when its contract terminated on 12 September 1987? The answer is no. When Amann's contract was terminated it had seven serviceable aircraft available. However, none of these fully met the specifications required in the contract. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I table the following papers: Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1988 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments, Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1988, and Particulars of Certain Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1988. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: (1) That the Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1988 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments, the Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1988 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1988 be referred forthwith to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That the Committees consider Proposed Additional Expenditure in the Estimates Committee groupings agreed to by Resolution of the Senate of 22 September 1987, with the following variations: Estimates Committee C Finance Treasury Employment, Education and Training Estimates Committee D Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Primary Industries and Energy Community Services and Health Veterans' Affairs (3) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Friday, 29 April 1988. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.05) —I think that this motion, in the main, is unexceptionable, but there is one part of it with which I am not familiar. I should like a little time to consider it. I would like this matter to be stood over until tomorrow. If the regrouping of the Estimates departments has been conveyed to the Opposition, that is not known to me. I would like to check the position to see whether there is any problem for the Opposition and I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Estimates Committees The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the following reports of the Auditor-General: Report of the Auditor-General on audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit and other Acts, for the period ended 31 December 1987. Report of the Auditor-General of an Efficiency Audit of the Australian National Railways Commission. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —I present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Consideration resumed from 17 March, on motion by Senator Tambling: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 17 March, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 17 March, on motion by Senator Patterson: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 22 March, on motion by Senator Sanders: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.07) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on the operations of the Bankruptcy Act is for the 12 months from July 1985 to 30 June 1986-and it is now March 1988. The standard of reporting is, in other words in terms of time taken, not simply disgraceful but a matter which the Government should promptly address. The nature of the report is not such as to justify a delay of that order from 30 June 1986 to March 1988. It is intolerable and I hope that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is reasonable in these matters, will seek to improve the quality of the work of his colleague the Attorney-General. I can understand why the Government was not keen to get this report forward because it reveals that bankruptcies are exceeding even the record levels that were experienced earlier in this Labor Administration. So far this year there has been a 45 per cent increase over the bankruptcy rates before this Government came into office. Although the figures revealed in this annual report relate only to the 1985-86 period, subsequent statistics have been issued by the Attorney-General on a quarterly basis, but have not been subject to the detail or analysis available in this annual report. We note, however, that the reasons for bankruptcy are depressing. The main one seems to relate to the fact that, under this Government, it is easier for people to be forced into bankruptcy because of the combination of high interest rates and the taxes, charges and the anti-incentive policies introduced by this Government. Many ordinary Australians-not simply businesses-are going bankrupt because of the severe cuts in their standard of living which has occurred under the present Government. Clearly, Australia now has the highest number of bankruptcies on record. About 8,000 businesses are going to the wall under the Hawke Government's high interest rate policies and bankruptcy figures in the latest quarter indicate that the situation will be even worse than it was last year. I would expect about 9,000 bankruptcies in the current financial year judging by the interim figures so far. Of course, the effect of the recent stock market crash can only place additional pressure on an already alarmingly high level of bankruptcies. When this dramatic increase in the level of bankruptcies was raised by my colleague in the other place Allan Cadman, MP recently, the Treasurer, Mr Keating, simply said: Look you make no point about bankruptcies of small businesses, they are on all the time. What one must look at is the buoyancy of the economy and the buoyancy of business in particular and that's what this Government has delivered. Clearly, the Government does not care about small businesses going broke and the fact that bankruptcies are at record levels. Many of these are small businesses that have been established by hard working newcomers to Australia from overseas and, as I have said, this has been exacerbated by the high interest rate policies of this Government. In conclusion, I urge the Minister to do what he can to ensure that figures of vital concern to Australians, contained in the annual report of the Attorney-General entitled Operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, be made available more readily so that we can really see just what disastrous consequences are following from the anti-small business and anti-consumer policies of this Government-particularly its high interest rates, high taxes and general anti-small business approach. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 23 March, on motion by Senator Powell: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Senator Patterson: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(3.12) —I welcome the report of the National Health and Medical Research Council, not just because I noticed in it that my brother, Professor Sheil, at the University of Sydney, was given quite a considerable grant and that grant is to be repeated next year. It is a comprehensive report and covers a lot of ground, but I would like to mention a couple of things that the National Health and Medical Research Council has brought to our attention. The first is the advertising of foods, many of which are dangerous, in Australia. They are widely advertised in the print and electronic media and are actually causing health problems. The Council has called for a conference between the various authorities and the media to see whether they can agree on some sort of code which will preclude this kind of mischievous advertising. I draw that to the attention of the Senate. Secondly, the Council points out to people the dangers of calcium intake, which is in vogue in Australia today, for the treatment of osteoporosis in women after their menopause; that is, when their bones are getting thinner. The Council points out that we can get all the calcium we need from milk and cheese rather than by taking high doses of calcium which do not cure the condition and which can be dangerous in producing other conditions in people. The third and last issue I wish to raise is the mention in the report of the National Health and Medical Research Council of the bringing into Australia of smokeless tobacco. This has been proven to be dangerous overseas but it is allowed into Australia at the moment. We ought to take action to see that imports are prohibited. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(3.15) —I rise to speak to the report of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) because I would like to place on record my admiration for the work of the Council which is clearly evidenced by this report. I would like to say also that the Council deserves support in what I hope are its successful attempts to make sure that the growing fashion of saying that medical research is somehow in competition with other scientific research and perhaps is entitled to a lesser share of the cake does not come to fruition. It is important to put on the record that there is a need for blue sky, non-contract research to be carried out in this country. Although there is again a fashion of saying that perhaps we are better served by having specific contract research done, it is well to remember that many important discoveries that are being made in the scientific field have arisen from blue sky, pure research where the product that may have come as a result has not been the specific end of the research. Concurrent with this thinking is that we need always to keep the best brains in this country. In the event that research grants and university research functions are not maintained, many of our better brains and those people who contribute to the overall wealth of knowledge in this country will be tempted to leave. The grant system which is administered by the NHMRC is an important one. It realises as well that the element of private funding for research is an important aspect. Many researchers have to go through a very competitive and extensive peer review system to show what their research is doing and this is commendable. But if there are not sufficient resources for a sufficient number of researchers to be successful, we will ultimately be the poorer for it. Private funding is an area with which I am familiar. I spent some seven years on the board of the Asthma Foundation of New South Wales. Indeed, I was its vice-president and chairman of its appeal committee in 1975. The thrust of the Foundation has been to support research. I know from the experience that I have had that when one is raising private funds for that purpose one will always find it easier if one says to the general public, `It will buy a bed or a respirator'-something to which a name can be given or a specific thing which can be seen. But when one is selling the concept of research and that ultimately people's health will benefit by some breakthrough that may occur in the future, it is a much more difficult concept for people to come to terms with. Yet the result of much of that research has been the improvement in the management of asthma and the lives of the people who suffer from it. Its incidence appears to be growing when we look at the number of sufferers in Australia. There is no cure, but the research has enabled better management, better health and a better standard of living for those people who are receiving treatment. It is important that we do not lose good and able people-people whose minds are attracted to research. It is truly a vocation; it is truly something that some people have a specific facility for which they exercise well in this nation. When we talk about cutting back in the pure research area, if we are not careful we will take away from the collective wisdom and medical knowledge that make up the base and the rigour medical research and practices in this country. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.19) —Some time ago I spoke about the acceptance of a paper by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on home births and alternative birthing centres. Following that paper, which had many problems associated with it-a lack of statistics, lack of any mention of the morbidity of the mother or the baby in association with home births, and lack of scientific data or a scientific approach at all by the committee that looked at the matter-I sent a copy of my speech to the NHMRC and to Dr Cathy Mead, Secretary/Convenor of the Women's Health Committee that put forward the paper. Since than I have received a letter from Dr Cathy Mead. I was delighted that she wrote as follows: The Women's Health Committee which established the Working Party on Homebirths and Alternative Birth Centres considered your comments along with other comments received at its most recent meeting. Following discussion of these comments the Women's Health Committee has recommended that a consultative group be established to prepare a supplementary statement on homebirths and address minimum standards for implementation. Representatives of the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Australian College of Paediatrics, and the Australian College of Midwives will be invited to join this group which will be chaired by Dr Aileen Connon, Chairman of the Women's Health Committee. The consultative group will be able to consider the comments you have made. This was a very worthwhile exercise. I shall be looking forward to receiving a copy of the review. I note that this is not uncommon. Evidently there was another one, a working party to revise the document `Organisation of Peri-natal Services'. A committee has been set up to review that document. It concerns me, I suppose, that the NHMRC, which I have always held in great esteem, accepts documents from its working parties without really giving them the due consideration that such a body should give such documents. It is strange that the NHMRC has to conduct reviews of its considered acceptances. As I say, I am looking forward very much to the working party's review, and I thank Dr Cathy Mead for taking note of my comments and for setting up such a review panel. Senator JONES(Queensland)(3.24) —I seek leave, Mr Acting Deputy President, to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(3.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —by leave-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the fifty-first annual report of the Joint Committee of Public Works, covering the activities of the Committee during 1987. Debate resumed from 19 November 1987, on motion by Senator Short: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(3.25) —In speaking to the Flags Amendment Bill 1987, which has been introduced by the Opposition, I reiterate the purpose for its introduction-that is, to ensure that our national flag cannot be changed unless the people are asked and give their consent and approval. The Bill is identical to that introduced in the Senate in 1984 by Senator Peter Durack. The Bill was passed by the Senate early in 1985. On transmittal to the House of Representatives, however, its progress was thwarted by the Hawke Government and it was not debated-hence the need to reintroduce the Bill. I am proud to have been the inaugural Vice-President of the Australian National Flag Association in New South Wales. Since being elected to the Senate, I have stood down as Vice- President, and I have been honoured to be made an honorary member of the Council of Management, so that my interest continues. Indeed, next Wednesday there will be an important presentation to people who have honoured the flag by the Australian National Flag Association, which is an important activity that the Association carries out. The reason that the Flag Association was established was not a reactive measure but a proactive measure. It was designed to promote the use and knowledge of the Australian national flag. Indeed, the brochure for membership says that the aims and objectives of the Association are as follows: To communicate positively to all Australians the importance and significance of our chief national symbol-the Australian National Flag; To provide promotional and educational material concerning the existing Australian National Flag; To promote the Australian identity overseas by the use of the Australian National Flag; To support existing `fly the flag' programs and encourage support from recognised service organisations; To encourage personal identity with the Australian National Flag at all levels within the community. The Flag Association has been very successful. It exists right across Australia and has a very high membership of thousands and thousands of people. Indeed, I shall quote some of the words in a most important publication, The Flags of Australia, which I seek leave to table. Leave granted. Senator BISHOP —I thank the Senate. This magnificent poster, which is a bicentennial project, depicts all the flags of Australia since the discovery of this continent and the use of the Queen Anne flag. Printed on it are these words: The Australian National Flag is our chief national symbol within Australia and overseas. It identifies a free and democratic people in a nation united in purpose, custom and traditions. Our National flag belongs equally to all Australians whatever their origins. It is the right and privilege of every Australian to fly the Australian National Flag. But again, the concern and the reason for the introduction of this Bill, the underlying disquiet which many Australians feel, are very simply that the flag could be changed very easily by the Australian Labor Party-indeed, the Labor Government. I would cite as evidence for this a report in the Sun of 11 June 1986 under the heading, `Change the Flag and abolish the Senate'. The report stated: A top level Labor Party committee plans to change the national flag and abolish the Senate in the most significant constitutional overhaul since Federation. The radical policy, to be put at next month's ALP National Conference in Hobart, also backs the fixed term four-year Parliaments Prime Minister Bob Hawke promised in 1983. Bob Hawke has promised many things over time, some of which have been honoured and some of which have not. Senator Crichton-Browne —He wants to abolish the States, too. Senator BISHOP —Indeed, he does. It is important to note that the assurance by the Prime Minister that the Government simply had no plans before it at that time to change the flag was given contemporaneously with the statement I just read from the Sun publication in 1986. Quite frankly, the people of Australia do not believe that that assurance is enough. They do not feel assured that our flag, our national symbol, is safe. There are many arguments as to why the Australian national flag is held so dearly by the majority of Australians. The push by Ausflag 88 to try to have the flag changed in the bicentennial year was founded simply on the ambition of a few people without sounding the wishes of the rest of Australia. So the debates that ensued and the so-called alternatives that ensued were rather facile and were accorded no response from the Australian people except to engender further determination, as has been evidenced by the number of petitions to this place calling on the Government to ensure that our national symbol cannot be changed without the people being asked. It is interesting that a country that has such little heritage is celebrating 200 years of settlement. We have been a nation only since 1901. As a nation that needs an important heritage, we are far too young to try to jettison any that we have. Our flag is an important symbol and should be treated in an holistic way. It is not something that one should pull apart and say, `I like this bit but I reject that bit'. The flag is a symbol that is important to all Australians. Indeed, Australian forces have died under it while fighting for the freedom that it represents. From time to time in this bicentennial year we hear arguments concerning the maturing of the Australian nation. To me, maturity means that one accepts the facts. They are that we were settled by the British, and we inherited British institutions. In a splendid address given by Mr Justice Michael Kirby entitled `The Anglo Aren't the Enemy' in response to I think Mr Donald Horne's paper to the effect that the Anglos are the enemy, Mr Justice Michael Kirby pointed out that it is the British institutions that have engendered a tolerance in this nation, a tolerance which has enabled us to accept people from different cultures and ethnic backgrounds. Those people have added to the collective whole that now makes up Australia. Some like to call it multiculturalism but we can also call it an enriched cultural Australia. The point I want to make is that if a nation is maturing it must accept its origins as a matter of fact and not pretend that they did not exist. As we go forth into the Pacific region and say that we are an important player in the region, we will go forward from a position of strength if we acknowledge that we are a Western culture in an Asian region, that as a people we know who we are, that we are proud of our origins and admit that perhaps there are things in our past that we might hope had been done differently, but which nonetheless we acknowledge, just as we acknowledge our origins. In keeping our flag in its present form we are saying that we are sure of who we are and that we are maturing as a people. It disappoints me greatly when I hear the Ausflag people say that somehow by maintaining our flag as we do, we are not an independent and rigorous nation. I say that the true argument is the contrary: by saying that this is our flag which by its design recognises our origins, we say that we are a proud, free and independent people. Historically it is interesting to note that in 1901 the original competition to design our flag received 32,823 entries from men, women and children. The judges assessed those entries using guidelines which included history, heraldry, distinctiveness, utility and cost of manufacture. On 3 September 1901 a public ceremony was held at the Exhibition Building in Melbourne where Lady Hopetoun, the wife of the Governor-General, opened a display of entries in the competition. The Prime Minister of Australia, Edmund Barton, announced that the five entrants who had submitted similar designs were to share the honour of being declared the designers of Australia's own flag. They were Ivor Evans, a 14-year-old school boy from Melbourne; Leslie John Dawkins, a teenager apprenticed to a Sydney optician; Egbert John Nuttall, a Melbourne architect; Annie Dorrington, an artist from Perth; and William Stevens, a ships officer from New Zealand. The Commonwealth Government and the Review of Reviews for Australasia each provided #75, to which the Havelock Tobacco Co. added #50, making a total of #200 prize money-a considerable amount of money at that time. The five winners each received #40. It is interesting that when Ausflag launched its competition for what produced some rather good logos, as distinct from national emblems, it received considerably fewer entries than were received from a far smaller population in 1901. The important thing that this Bill will ensure is that our flag will be given a proper place within our constitutional framework. Our flag will not be dismissed, as it was by Senator Gareth Evans when on 15 September 1985 he was asked by Senator Kilgariff what had happened to the progress of the Bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Durack entitled the Flags Amendment Bill 1984. As six months had passed, Senator Kilgariff asked, `If the Government does intend to process the Bill, when will this take place?'. Senator Gareth Evans, adopting a flippant attitude, as he often does, said, `I have no brief on this matter, but it is my understanding that the Bill has died a well deserved death in the other House'. That is the sort of attitude which is unacceptable and which the people of Australia find unacceptable. That is why this Bill is important and why it is being debated here today. I can only hope, as the Bill goes through the processes of this Parliament, that it will meet with more respectful and more befitting treatment than it received on its previous journey. In commending the Bill to the Senate I say that should we pass this Bill we will be thanked by the people of Australia who regard their flag as their national symbol, an important expression of their pride in what is a great, mature, independent and resolute nation. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.38) —We are debating the Flags Amendment Bill 1984, which essentially is designed to so amend the Flags Act 1953 as to prevent the Government of the day designating flags, other than that which we all recognise as the Australian flag, as flags for special occasions. In Senator Durack's second reading speech when he introduced the Flags Amendment Bill 1984, prior to the last double dissolution, he said: Fortunately the flag is prescribed by the Flags Act 1953 and the flag designated as the `Australian national flag' could only be changed by legislation. Nevertheless, the Act does allow the Governor-General to `appoint such other flags and ensigns of Australia as he thinks fit'. In other words, the Government may, by advice to the Governor-General, designate other flags for special occasions. These occasions could conceivably cover a whole range of events such as the Olympic Games or on any occasion when our nationality on the world stage is on show. The object of this amendment is to prevent the Government by this surreptitious means replacing the Australian flag with a new de facto flag of its choice. Senator Durack stated in his second reading speech: 2. The Governor-General will be specifically prohibited from appointing, upon the advice of the Government, `other flags or ensigns' as the standard for the Commonwealth of Australia, the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Australian nation. This will prevent the Government from advising the Governor-General to appoint other flags to challenge or detract from the Australian flag as the symbol of our nation or national institutions. A referendum provision is also inserted in the amendment to ensure that the Australian national flag cannot be amended or replaced without a referendum voted on in the manner prescribed in the Constitution in regard to constitutional amendments. In other words, the referendum would be of a type that would require a majority of votes in the majority of States. There is a widely-held but mistaken view that Australia has had foisted upon it or has inherited a flag from Great Britain. Of course, the truth is to be found elsewhere. Therefore, I bother to give just a short history of the Australian flag to demonstrate that this is not so. As we all know of course the first national flag raised in Australia was a Dutch flag. It was raised by Abel Tasman when he discovered Van Diemen's Land, as it was then known. We were told that in fact one of his sailors braved wild surf to take the flag ashore. The flag history of Australia as a British possession began on 29 April 1770 when Captain James Cook raised the flag at Botany Bay. A few months later, on 22 August 1770 at a ceremony on Possession Island off Cape York, Cook raised the flag again and, on that occasion, formally claimed the east coast of the continent in the name of King George III. However, Britain did not of course take physical possession of eastern Australia until 18 years later when New South Wales was founded. This delay gave the French time to make their territorial claims. They did this when the flag was raised by Lieutenant Francois de Saint Allorarn at Shark Bay in Western Australia. Coincidentally, this is the place at which this evening there is to be a large public meeting of people who have taken exception to the World Heritage legislation passed in this chamber this morning. As I understand, the next known flag to be raised into our skies was that raised by Governor Arthur Phillip in 1788 at Sydney Cove when he founded the first British colony. Of course, the flag that was raised on that occasion was not the Union Jack. It was the Union flag-the distinction being that it contained only the red cross of St George and the white saltire of St Andrew. The red saltire of St Patrick was not added to the union flag until 1801 when Ireland officially became part of the United Kingdom. As we know the English flag is not the Union Jack, as is popularly understood. We further learn that in the early 1820s two sea captains, Nicholson and Bingle, made the first real attempt to give Australia a flag of its own. It was approved by the Lords of the Admiralty and it is known to have had a white background charged with the red cross of St George with, in each corner, a star, symbolising the Southern Cross. For obvious reasons the flag never attracted the wider imagination of the Australian people, primarily because it offended those of Scottish or Irish descent. While it included the Cross of St George, it excluded the cross of St Andrew and the cross of St Patrick. Over the years there were several more attempts at designing and establishing an Australian flag. Perhaps one of the most notable and most popular was the Anti-Transportation League banner of about 1851. As I understand it, that flag was remarkably similar to the present Australian flag-it featured the Union Jack in the hoist and had the five stars of the Southern Cross in the fly. We then had the Eureka Stockade flag of 1854-a flag which has now been adopted by the Builders Labourers Federation. That flag has a broad white cross and five white stars resting on a blue background. As best I understand it, there were no other memorable flags created until 1873 when the Australian Federation League was formed in Sydney. The League's slogan was, `One people-one destiny-one flag'. Again this flag had a Union Jack in the hoist and featured a pale blue cross with a white star at the extremity of each corner and a white star in the middle. In 1900, with Federation almost a reality, the Melbourne Herald conducted a competition seeking designs for an Australian flag. The winner produced a flag which, again, included the Union Jack, the stars of the Southern Cross and six red stripes to symbolise the six States. A further flag competition was conducted by the Review of Reviews. This competition was in progress when Federation was proclaimed on New Year's Day in 1901. The first Australian Government then joined with the Review of Reviews in the search for a national flag. The total prize money was #400. As was pointed out by the previous speaker, Senator Bishop, there was a total of 32,823 entrants in that competition. There were five winners, not the least being a lady Mrs Dorrington, from Western Australia. In 1909 the flag was changed to include a further white point, to add the seventh point to the Commonwealth Star, to symbolise the Territories of the Commonwealth of Australia. I have spent some little time giving the history and evolution of the present Australian flag to make it clear that the flag we have is unquestionably an Australian flag-developed, designed and accepted by all Australians. It is interesting to note that in this evolutionary process there are two features that seem to thread their way in the design of so many of the flags. These are, of course, the Union Jack and the Southern Cross. It is often argued by those people who want our national flag changed that we should follow the Canadian system and adopt a new national flag. Perhaps that argument can be put no better than by quoting the words of Mr R. B. Walker, a past mayor of Launceston. He said in a very articulate way in an article in the Hobart Mercury of 31 October 1983: The adoption by Canada of a new national flag is sometimes given as a good reason why Australia should do the same. May I point out that the circumstances prompting the Canadian action are entirely different from those prevailing in Australia. French culture and traditions preceded the British in Canada and the names of Champlain, La Salle, Cartier and Cadillac are writ large in the early history of Canada and the fruits of their achievements did not die with Montcalm on the Heights of Abraham in 1759. Because the great divisions and bitterness between the British and French in Canada have never really abated to this day, it was decided that the best way to bridge the gap was to try to start afresh under a new flag and most would agree this was the sensible course to take. Even so, the Union Flag is retained in the Canadian arms and in several of the provincial flags. I might add that it was in 1925 that the debate on a new Canadian flag commenced. At that time a committee was formed for the purpose of designing a new flag. It was in 1965, some 40 years later, that Canada's new flag was first raised. Senator Collins —A very nice flag it is too. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I do not disagree with that. It is interesting to note that, in the end, the bitter arguments and debates that raged throughout Canada for 40 years were settled because the Liberal Party abandoned the flag designed by their Prime Minister and agreed to the design adopted by the Conservatives. The Conservatives never intended that their flag should ever get up because they did not want to change the flag. However, they did not want to be seen as obstructionists, so they proposed a flag. The smarties in the Liberal Party joined them and they found themselves with a new flag. Senator Collins —Would you agree with half the Union Jack? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That gives me some hope that we will retain the present flag. Mr Walker also dealt very eloquently with the argument used by some that the present flag does not reflect the character of our comparatively recent migrants. In the same article he said: There are those Australians who pander to these comparative newcomers, using them as a vehicle to advance their own views and ambitions. I would only say that when the United States flung open its doors to foreign immigrants after the Civil War, the same arguments could have been applied. However, those people from alien cultures were encouraged, and indeed expected, to accept the stars and stripes and they certainly did so. `Accept' is the key word, and why not? Those immigrants proudly chose to assume, as their own, the American flag and tradition, and to no mean effect. Yet, looking back to their old motherlands and retaining most of what was good, they left their impact on the American way of life, to its general benefit, as they have done in Australia to ours. But the United States still has its Old Glory. It seems, for reasons which I am not thoroughly certain I understand, that there is some embarrassment, shame, cringing or an inferiority complex which causes some people in Australia to seek to deny the fact that we were first settled by the English. It is as if something causes them to want to disguise that fact. I am not certain I understand what their obsession is with cutting these intrinsic links with our heritage and that of our forefathers and forebears. We have inherited the finest judicial, legal and political system. Many of those migrants who are used as an excuse to change the flag, because it has no intrinsic merit or relationship for them, are the same migrants who fled to Australia from totalitarian regimes seeking comfort and the coverage and support of the very fabric of institutions which Australia is able to provide because of the inheritance it received from the English. It is the recognition and acknowledgment of those fine values and institutions which is causing some people, for reasons which I do not understand, to seek to deny them. I rather wonder what this obsession is that drives people in the Australian Labor Party to deny fundamental Australian history. What is it that causes them to deny Australia's historic links with England? Is it part of their wider proposal for an Australian republic? Is it that, for some reason, they want to sever links with the monarchy? I always find it passing strange that whenever members of the royal family visit Australia, it is the Labor Party leaders, in that obsequious way which only they can demonstrate, who fawn around them. Senator Robert Ray —Not me. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I accept that; perhaps Senator Ray does not do so. However, I have watched his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his obsequious, fawning way, seeking just to stand near enough to the royal family to attract some of the reflection of popular adulation which invariably goes with the royal family when it visits Australia because of our feeling of warmth for and our relationship with the United Kingdom. However, when we hear talk of Australia becoming a republic, we find no sophisticated explanation for what is intended. It seems to be, in some way, driven by an inferiority complex. It seems to be a statement of social values and has nothing to do with political argument. It is almost a cultural statement. It is as if to say, `We can't stand up alone in the shadow of our forefathers'. I can conceive of only two premises upon which the Labor Party would wish to extinguish any perceived ties with the United Kingdom. Perhaps one, as I have suggested, is that there are those in the Labor Party who are smitten with an enormous inferiority complex and are unable to cope other than to stand in isolation. Perhaps they are smothered or intimidated by their historical links. If it is not that, I can only imagine that there are other radical changes which they would have in Australia's system, in Australian society, which would cause them to remove all their ties and links. It is almost as if they want to obliterate our collective institutional memory. It is almost as if they no longer want any datum point. As Senator Ray would know better than most, the method of introducing radical changes into any system, in whatever form it may take, is to cut loose from previous norms, forms and comparisons and to remove oneself from the foundation and base from which one developed and matured. If one divorces one's system from intrinsic comparisons by which new and radical reforms can be compared, there is no longer a datum point; there is no way of making a relative comparison. I can only assume that the Labor Party, for whatever reasons, wants those radical reforms and understands that they can best be achieved in a vacuum, in isolation-certainly not by way of comparison. I conclude by saying that it is obvious that the Labor Party has no love for this legislation. Certainly, it has no enthusiasm for it. Clearly, through the normal insidious, surreptitious manner in which it seeks to change society in this country, it wants to change the flag; not by way of a constitutional vote but by way of a proclamation-in the same way as the Prime Minister gave us his colours for our country. I note-it is referred to in Senator Short's second reading speech-that the Labor Party's 1986 platform, in the context of preparations for the bicentennial celebrations, was to initiate and support moves to establish, with popular acceptance, an Australian flag. I love the words `popular acceptance'. What does that mean? Is it like the Government's form of consensus-as long as Bob Hawke agrees, everybody will agree with him? We are told that we will have a national day, a national anthem, which will more distinctly reflect our national independence and identity, and a new Australian national flag. It is as though, for some reason, that which we have at present is not adequate, satisfactory and necessary. We have to have change for change's sake. We have to have change so that, at the end of the day, this failed Government can look back and reflect upon material achievements to the extent that it was able to change the flag or the national anthem. I have no doubt that this legislation has overwhelming support from the vast majority of the community. If this Government wants, as it says it does, to reflect the community view, it ought to allow this legislation to be passed expeditiously through not only this chamber but also the House of Representatives. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.00) —Looking through the Opposition speakers list this afternoon, I was reminded of that great baseball side, the New York Yankees, which at one stage in the 1930s and 1940s had a batting line-up called Murderers' Row-Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth and others. It was the most fearsome combination in American baseball. We have seen a similar replication here today on the Opposition speakers list. All of the hard Right of the Liberal Party of Australia are giving us 15 to 20 minutes on the essence of conservatism. There are one or two missing. I notice that Senator McGauran has not made the speakers list. Seeing he is here, maybe he is, in baseball terms, a switch hitter and will be coming in to supplement the line-up. Senator Tambling —Where do you and Collins stand? Senator ROBERT RAY —We have only two speakers. We believe that we can outweigh the Opposition speakers, both physically and mentally. There are two of us against six or seven Opposition speakers. I think the Opposition would agree with us on at least one of those grounds. It is curious to note that it must be the turn of the Right wingers in the Liberal Party to speak this afternoon. I wonder where all the wets are this afternoon. No doubt they are in the library or somewhere else. Today we will listen to speaker after speaker give us a distillation of what conservatism really is. I wonder about Senator Crichton-Browne. I acknowledge that today he has put on the record what conservatism is. I feel sorry for him and I feel sorry for all conservatives if what he has said today is a reality of their lives. I feel sorry for them if they sit trembling, worrying about every piece of change or if, like the Amish community, they want to retain everything like it is. I really wonder whether Senator Crichton-Browne sleeps with the light on because he is so frightened of what the future may hold. I acknowledge that Senator Crichton-Browne is a good conservative inasmuch as he thinks about what conservatism really means. But I do not, and never will, support a purely conservative viewpoint in society. As honourable senators know, I will not support a revolutionary one either. I believe that real change comes about gradually. We have heard from Senator Bishop who detailed what she regards as one of the crowning achievements of her life in New South Wales, namely, being on the Australian Flag Committee or something. I really wonder about Senator Bishop. Did she ever support the changing of the National Anthem? I suspect not. Maybe she would have supported changing it to the Horst Wessel Song or something. I really do wonder whether the honourable senator supported the change in the anthem. This political exercise is really about the politics of exploitation, something that the right wing of the Liberal Party has always been good at. It operates something like this: one of the best ways of engendering support in the community is to create an atmosphere of fear. That is the politics of exploitation, the thing that Senator Knowles, Senator Crichton-Browne, Senator Bishop and others have done par excellence. It was a lesson well learnt by Robert Menzies. He was not necessarily conservative, but this was just one of his techniques. I do not regard him as being conservative or reactionary per se. This technique has been used in respect of the flag. It is used in terms of talking to migrant communities. Right across the community we have this politics of exploitation. Senator Crichton-Browne gave us a psychoanalysis of the Australian Labor Party. He told us what our methodology is. He said that in fact the only way to make progress is to cut the ties with the past. I do not believe that that is true. We on this side of the House have a good sense of history. We are proud of our heritage and in no way do we want to deny the heritage of this country. Our nation has many roots-British, European and, now, Asian. I think his psychoanalysis of the Labor Party is wrong inasmuch as we do not deny our past. We are proud of our past and we are proud of the role that Australia has played in a whole range of things. Let me move to the second point. People have raised the question of what is the future of this Bill. Quite clearly, if the Bill gets the numbers in this chamber-and if the 1984 vote does not change, it will-it will go to the House of Representatives. People opposite seem to be arguing that we have a moral obligation to consider the agenda that they have set for us. I am about to tell them that we do not. We have no obligation to pick up any private member's Bill out of here and run it through the House of Representatives. I guess if we did, and we had a consistent attitude, all that there would be in the House of Representatives would be a debate and a defeat because we have the numbers in that place, just as today the Opposition has the numbers here. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why do you say you are going to defeat it, Senator Ray? Why do you assume it will be defeated? Senator ROBERT RAY —I put in a presumption. I said `if' we were motivated to defeat it in the House of Representatives. If Senator Crichton-Browne had listened properly, he would understand what I said. I am putting on the record now that there is no obligation from a moral or ethical point of view for a government to have to list legislation that is brought forward by the Opposition. Indeed, if we look at the record of the Liberal Party when in government, we can see that private member's Bills were passed in this chamber, sent over to the House of Representatives and listed in that place at the bottom of the Notice Paper. I am not complaining about that. They are the facts of life. Honourable senators opposite will be able to get the legislation passed in the House of Representatives in 1990, 1993 and 1996 or whenever, when they get 50 per cent plus one of the votes. So it is just a pure debating point to say that in the natural course of things this issue should go to the House of Representatives. Let me go to what the Government's intentions are with regard to the flag. I suppose I hinted at that some months ago in answer to a question by Senator Short. My view is that this is not a key issue in politics; that in the life of the third Hawke Government the matter is very unlikely to be addressed. Senator Crichton-Browne —Unlikely? Senator ROBERT RAY —It is very unlikely to be addressed. It falls within my portfolio responsibilities. I have no instructions via a Cabinet minute or anything else to raise this as an issue. When people have written to me and said that they do not want the Australian flag changed, I have drawn to their attention comments of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in answer to questions in the House of Representatives in which he indicated that we have no current plans to change the Australian flag. That, in fact, happens to be true. Senator Crichton-Browne —What happened to your 1986 policy? Senator ROBERT RAY —The 1986 policy refers to us changing the flag in a certain period. I counsel Senator Crichton-Browne, and anyone else who is interested, to read the foreword to the national platform of the Labor Party. Unfortunately I do not have it with me. The most crucial thing ever carried by a national conference is the three to four paragraph foreword because it delegates to the Federal parliamentary Labor Party the right to implement policy over time. Indeed, it is a great myth that everything that is in the Labor Party policy can be implemented at one time. It cannot be and it never was intended to be. What we do is set the general broad framework of policy in a whole number of areas and leave the priorities up to the Government to determine. At the moment, if I were asked where I regard this issue in terms of priorities, I would say very low. I will return to that point in a moment. I think the thing that creates the most misgivings over the Australian flag is whether we should continue to have the Union Jack. This issue is distinctly different from the National Anthem. Until 10 or 15 years ago our national anthem was God Save the Queen, which I think even some of the conservatives in politics found a little anomalous. What anthem was played when Betty Cuthbert won a gold medal in the 400 metres at Tokyo in 1964? It was God Save the Queen. A lot of the audience wondered, `for heaven's sake, what is going on?'. While I am in the Olympic vein, I am fairly certain that history records in different ways the events surrounding the win by our first gold medallist, Edwin Flack, who won the 800 and 1,500 metres in 1896 in Athens. There was a lot of confusion once he had won. I am not sure whether people ran around looking for an Australian national anthem or an Australian flag. I tend to think that it was a flag. What did they run up the pole? Because of the confusion, they ran up the Austrian flag. Senator McGauran —What about Dawn Fraser? Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator McGauran says, `What about Dawn Fraser?'. Just for his information, Dawn Fraser won four Olympic gold medals-the 100 metres freestyle in Melbourne, the 100 metres freestyle in Rome in 1960, the 100 metres freestyle in Tokyo in 1964 and she was part of the successful 4 x 100 metres freestyle female swimming relay team in 1956 in Melbourne. See if you can count this far, Senator McGauran: how many times did they play God Save the Queen? Can you work that out? When you have done so, let me know and I will mark your answer. There is a distinction between the question of the national anthem-our replacing something of purely British origin with an Australian anthem-and this question about the flag. Our flag contains the Union Jack but it also has other distinctive Australian features. I do not dislike the Australian flag; what I dislike is the fact that some people overseas do not understand that it is an Australian flag. That annoys me. Of course, its similarity to the New Zealand flag causes more confusion, but we will not go into that today. The only point at which I object to the Union Jack being on the Australian flag is that it can be misinterpreted that we are still a colony or it can be thought of as a British naval flag or something like that. That is where I have some major objections. Let us look at the crucial high ground from which we can oppose this matter, rather than just saying that it is an obsession of conservatives and therefore a trivial matter. Does this matter have to go the referendum route? Before he sat down, Senator Crichton-Browne said some interesting words. They will come back to haunt him. He said, `Let the people decide'. Therefore, I take it from him that if later this year we bring in legislation to enable referendums to occur on various matters-for example, one vote one value or on four-year parliamentary terms-Senator Crichton Browne will jump to his feet and say, `Let the people decide. I will not debate the merits of this one way or the other; let the people decide'. That is exactly what the Australian Democrats say every time. They will be delighted to hear Senator Crichton-Browne's endorsement today of that proposition. I bet that Senator Crichton-Browne will recant; he will stand up and oppose this or that referendum. He will say, `We will not let this through' and run a filibuster. He will have to eat the words that he said here today-`Let the people decide'. In my view this motion today is important because it should indicate to the Australian people the priorities of the Opposition. There are a lot of important current issues out there in the electorate which affect people. There is a whole squad of macro-economic issues relating to the way in which this country should be heading. We have the micro-economic agenda to discuss. Why is Senator Lewis not in here discussing industry policy? That is far more important than this issue. Why is Senator Chaney not in here discussing industrial relations and other critical issues on which we can have an interchange of views? Where is Senator Stone? Why is he not here discussing trade policy or Budget deficits or going on with his normal obsessions? Why do not other front bench spokesmen raise important subjects? Why are we left with this non-issue? Is this an indication of the priorities of the Liberal Party of Australia that its members can think of nothing better to do than throw a dead cat in the ring and raise the question of the future of the Australian flag? I wonder. I realise and I concede that this is private members' business and that it does not always have to be dominated by the shadow Ministry. Nevertheless I wonder where the priorities of the Liberal Party lie. Can Liberal senators not raise those issues because they do not yet have one policy on the record in the run-up to the next election? Will they repeat the mistakes of the past when they belted together policy at the last minute and made monumental mathematical errors in their sums? We had a position in the last election where the Liberals' communications policy was never released. It was supposed to be released at the beginning of July 1987 but we are still waiting for it. Mr Beale never put it out. We are still waiting for Mr Shack to put out the costing of the 1987 Liberal education policies. He put out the education policies two or three weeks before the election and then told us that the costings would follow in four or five days. Now we are 10 months down the track and we still have no costings and no detailed policy. On this side of the House we are all very good from time to time, giving the Opposition a bit of gratuitous advice. Here is some more: It may be more profitable to go to the more central issues than to be continually diverted to the peripheral ones. It may be better not to let the conservative rednecks of the Liberal Party raise these extraneous issues and go back to the issues that concern middle Australia. Middle Australia will determine whether the Liberals move from that side of the House to this side. Senator Bishop —So central that you put it on your advertising. Senator ROBERT RAY —Of course we do. It is unfortunate that Senator Bishop walked into this House and made a very pathetic contribution. She then left and did not listen to the rest of the debate. She should read Senator Crichton-Browne's contribution because it was logically consistent. It argued a case and it defined Senator Bishop's conservatism in a far more articulate way than she ever could. The attitude of the Australian Labor Party is that we do not believe that this issue is really about the future of the Australian flag. It is about a methodology if that flag were ever to be changed. Therefore, the crucial issue for the Labor Party is whether this matter should inevitably go to a referendum. It may well do so, but should it inevitably be dictated by legislation that it must go by referendum? The answer is no. Therefore, we will oppose the Bill in the Senate. Recognising that we will probably be defeated, we will not divide on the matter. I can give no guarantees one way or the other as to the future of that legislation. If it is passed here I cannot guarantee that it will go to the House of Representatives for consideration. I cannot guarantee that and nor should I have to because no other government has every guaranteed the passage of a private member's Bill in the other place. I am sometimes amazed when I listen to either the amnesia of older honourable senators or the failure of the new ones to read history. It is as though the periods from 1975 to 1983 or 1949 to 1972 had never existed. When honourable senators opposite come in here and say `We must consider this in the House of Representatives' what they are really saying is that previous Liberal governments were total failures or not ethical or moral because they constantly failed to progress private members' legislation in that House. In conclusion, I am very interested in this proposition coming from those opposite that the people must decide. That is not a view that I take strong exception to. But I bet any money that when other referendum proposals come in here the Liberals will get up and oppose them. They will no longer be saying, `Let the people decide'. They will argue on the merits of this or that, whichever fits into their ultra-conservative, reactionary philosophy. When they come in here and lecture us about letting the people decide it is nothing more than absolute crass hypocrisy. The issue we are debating today-the future of the Australian flag-is basically a dead issue in the life of this Government. As Minister for Home Affairs, I do not intend at this stage, without an instruction from Cabinet, to take this matter any further. There are more important issues for Australians and their political representatives to concentrate on. This debate has achieved only one thing: those who may in their heart of hearts believe in the abolition of the Senate have once again been given a lot of firm evidence as to why they may want to entertain such hopes. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Robert Ray's comments. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —You are now able to speak on the misrepresentation of your speech, but you must confine your comments to remarks made in Senator Ray's speech. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Ray did reasonably accurately reflect what I said about letting the people decide, but he put it in the context that I was arguing that all matters should ultimately rest with the people as the judges. Clearly that is not what I said. Clearly it was not what I intended. What I said in specific terms was that if there is to be a change to Australia's flag it ought ultimately to be put to the people for their decision by way of referendum using the present provisions in the Constitution. I was putting it in the context that this is an issue quite capable of standing outside party politics and it is an issue on which the people of Australia are competent, of course, to make a decision. The judgment ought not to be, in some insidious way, made by this Government by way of legislation or by way of proclamation by the Governor-General at the invitation of the Government. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales) —I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Ray. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Senator Bishop, you may now speak in relation to the matters in your speech on which you were misrepresented. Senator BISHOP —My concern is the mention that was made of the national anthem and Senator Robert Ray's imputation and statement that somehow I would have supported the changing of our national anthem to some foreign sounding title, the meaning and understanding of which escapes me. By those offensive remarks he is somehow daring to question my loyalty to this nation and my value of Advance Australia Fair as our national anthem, which I sing with great pride. Indeed, I know the words, which probably puts me in a category outside some in the Australian Labor Party. I also have a very good understanding and regard for God Save the Queen when it is used on regal occasions. I find the statement questioning my loyalty to this nation and my appreciation of my own national anthem highly offensive. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(4.23) —I support the Flags Amendment Bill which Senator Short has introduced in the Senate. I would like to refer to some of the remarks Senator Robert Ray made in his speech when he suggested that he could not understand why we wanted to discuss something so important as the Flag Act and why we wanted to continue to keep our flag as Australia's national flag. Senator Short —You had better hurry because the Minister is leaving. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Yes, I am sorry about that. He asked why does not Senator Lewis come in here and discuss industrial policies, why does not Senator Stone come in here and discuss trade policies, why does not Senator Chaney come in and talk about financial policies. Well, my remarks to the Minister are that yesterday we debated a very important matter of public importance that was raised and spoken to by Senator Chaney and spoken to by Senator Stone and Senator Lewis. Where was Senator Robert Ray? Nowhere to be seen. In addition to two backbenchers, the only Minister to speak on such an important matter was Senator Bolkus. If the Minister had wanted to hear what our thoughts were on these very important matters, he would have been able to listen to the effects of Labor's financial policies being discussed in a very important matter of public importance. Senators were talking about how the Australian Labor Party had shortchanged the people of Australia and the impact that had made on their living standards. I believe the time to discuss these matters are when debates take place on matters of public importance-an important time in the Senate-and when the Senate is broadcast so that the Australian people can hear just how the Labor Party has been treating the people of Australia. People are noticing a sad effect on their pockets from the policies of the Labor Party. I was trying to explain why we think it is very important during private members general business to be able to discuss things like the flag. I consider it is a very important subject for all the people of Australia. Many people write in and tell us about it and many organisations within Australia want to continue to keep our present flag; they do not want it changed. I certainly do not believe there should be any thought or talk about change unless it is put to a referendum and the Australian people are able to say what they want to do and how they want to keep the Australian flag. In October 1984, Senator Grimes, then Minister for Social Security, stated that the Government intended to allow a referendum to be held before any thought was given to changing the flag. I hope the present Government is of the same opinion, although I was interested to hear Senator Robert Ray say in his speech-and it shows I did listen to what he was saying-that it was not a key issue. Senator Patterson —A trivial matter. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Yes, a trivial matter, and it was not likely to be addressed. He said it was very low in the Government's priorities. Well, it is very high in the Opposition's priorities and that is why we raised the matter for discussion this afternoon. In excellent speeches, Senator Bishop and Senator Crichton-Browne put the facts very clearly and succinctly so that people will know why we are very interested in retaining our present flag, and why we want to make sure the Government holds a referendum if there is any thought of changing it. I am certainly pleased to hear Senator Robert Ray say that there was no talk about it and he does not think the matter will be brought up by the Government. At any rate, I say shame on those honourable senators because he went on to say that the Labor Party is not going to vote for our Bill that Senator Short introduced. I say shame on the Labor Party for that. The formation of our national flag was a conscious act by the Australian people when Australia became a recognised nation at Federation in 1901. Until then Australia flew the Union Jack. Senator Bishop told us about the early days of the flag and how there was a growing feeling that Australia should have a new flag, one that would reflect its own identity. There was a national competition to devise a distinctive Australian flag. More than 30,000 entries were received. Indeed, many of those featured Australian flora and fauna, sheaves of wheat, kangaroos, boomerangs, and kookaburras, together with the stars and stripes in various colours and combinations. However, the judges decided on the design for our national flag as we know it, with the addition in 1908 of an extra point to the Federation star to take account of the Australian Territories-at that time New Guinea. Of course, now it represents the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. The predominant colour on the flag is blue. I feel that no colour could be more appropriate for a country such as Australia which is world renowned for its clear blue skies. Around Canberra at the present time I am beginning to believe that the people wish the skies were not quite so blue-and the same applies to a vast area in Queensland-because they badly need some grey skies and some rain. The colour also represents the blue seas which surround us. Of course, I am proud that the Union Jack is still represented on the corner of the flag; that provides our link with Great Britain. We should remember that it was Lieutenant James Cook of the British Royal Navy who, after a long and adventurous voyage, discovered, charted and claimed the east coast of Australia for the British Crown. Indeed, when Captain Phillip arrived at Botany Bay after his epic voyage he did not find here a system of common law, representative government under the Crown or the English language. Phillip's small contingent, including the convicts, transported over thousands of miles a culture which took root in the new land. That culture, of course, now goes back 200 years. But our nation's original roots go back to Britain, and that is why I like to see the Union Jack on our flag, and indeed the present flag maintained. The symbolism of the Union Jack is Christian in origin. It is a combination of the three Christian crosses-St George, the patron saint of England, a red cross on a white background; St Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland, a white diagonal cross on a blue background; and the red diagonal cross of St Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, which was incorporated into the Union Jack in 1801. Those who adopted the present Australian flag-itself the result of an enormous nationwide competition-had the foresight to pay tribute to each of the three nations which contributed to our foundation-England, Scotland and Ireland. Each of these ethnic streams, by the crosses of the patron saints already mentioned, has recognition given to it by the present flag. I believe it is important that the majority of Australians, who, I am sure, wish to maintain our links with Britain, voice their concern over the rumblings which have occurred from time to time in regard to proposed changes to the flag. The history of a nation is just as important as its geographical situation. To deny future generations of Australians some visible awareness of that history is to deny our future Australians their heritage. However, the Federal Labor Government's policy on the flag which was stated in the 1982 Australian Labor Party platform is to initiate and support moves to establish with popular acceptance an Australian flag which would be more distinctively reflective of Australia's independence and identity. Some people argue that our present flag in some ways still reflects our colonised status and now that we have become an independent nation we should have a new flag to reflect our national identity. Others even suggest that migrants to this country cannot be expected to live and work under our flag. However, I believe that migrants generally see our Australian flag as symbolising the characteristics of Australia which attracted them to adopt this country as their own in the first place. I understand that members of the Ethnic Communities Council joined the Australian Flag Preservation Committee which was formed in Queensland some years ago as a demonstration of their commitment. A Gallup poll taken in May 1984 showed that 61 per cent of Australians preferred to keep the existing flag rather than have it changed. In fact, in an Australia-wide public opinion poll in the Bulletin of July 1984, 2,107 men and women were asked whether the Union Jack should continue to be in our flag. Sixty-eight per cent of those polled said the Union Jack should be retained in the flag, which I take as meaning that they believe the flag should remain as it is at present. In the Courier-Mail of 5 April 1984 the senior vice-president of the Returned Services League in Queensland in a letter to the editor stated: The RSL has never claimed proprietal rights over the politics of patriotism, but that impression may have been conveyed because of its continual concern for the integrity of Australia. Nor has it claimed the right to speak for all Australians, but by virtue of its 275,000 members' service in the defence forces of Australia during war and in peacetime, to speak in the interests of the nation as a whole. The RSL policy on the Australian national flag is that the present one be retained without alteration. I was very proud to see our flag hoisted at the Commonwealth Games held in Brisbane. It was an exciting time each time it was hoisted. Also, when the Australian flag is hoisted at the Olympics it gives Australians a thrill. As a senator I am always happy to arrange for the Australian flag to be obtained for schools and various approved organisations. On many occasions I am asked to present these flags which I do with a great deal of pride. I am sure that many other senators feel exactly the same way. At the school I explain about the Union Jack and its association with Australia's history and I talk about the Southern Cross on the flag-for Australia is aptly named `the land of the Southern Cross'. Senator Crichton-Browne —I once lived at Southern Cross. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I am interested to hear that from the honourable senator. I understand that Senator Panizza lives at Southern Cross now. I also talk about the star of Federation, which stands for all States and Territories. I strongly believe that any changes to the Australian national flag should be made only if approved by a majority of people in a referendum. Our flag is a proud symbol of our history, our independence as a nation and our parliamentary and judicial institutions. I reiterate that the majority of Australians believe that the flag should be retained in its present form. Accordingly, I strongly support Senator Short's Bill and commend it to the Senate. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(4.37) —As Senator Robert Ray said so accurately, this is a very tedious debate. I was reading Senator Short's second reading speech this afternoon and went back over some of the previous debates in the Senate. I found to my great interest that it was an exact copy of the speech Senator Durack delivered in this place in 1984. Senator Short —No, it is not. Senator COLLINS —It is. In fact, it uses precisely the same quotations as were used by Senator Durack. I do not say that necessarily is a bad thing in itself. I suppose that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I imagine Senator Durack's original speech said what Senator Short said in his speech, but his speech was a repeat of Senator Durack's remarks. Certainly Senator Short repeated the same kind of jingoism that was contained in Senator Durack's speech. Like a lot of Australians I have no `die at the barricades' feelings about the Australian flag. There is one thing that irritates me about the present Australian flag, as much as I like it. I have the same emotional and totally Australian feelings towards the flag as most people in this country, but what irritates me about it is its lack of identification overseas and the confusion that constantly surrounds the flying of our flag. People confuse it with the flag of Great Britain and the flags of other countries. I am one of many people who believe that we should do a deal. Either we should change our flag, or the Poms should change theirs and stop using the corner out of ours. Senator Crichton-Browne —It is not the English flag. Senator COLLINS —I am easy. But one of the things that irritate me about the debate about the Australian flag is the nonsense that is delivered in the form of patriotic fervour. There are two senators in this place who can, with some authority, talk about the advantages of having a truly Australian design. One is choosing not to do that, and I refer to Senator Tambling, but this particular senator from the Northern Territory is choosing to do so. As I said in my first speech in this place, the Northern Territory is the only political entity in Australia which has a flag that does not have the Union Jack on it. I must say that the Northern Territory flag is universally admired. It is a striking flag in the Territory colours of black, white and ochre, featuring Sturt's desert rose and the Southern Cross. It is interesting to look at the record of paranoia that has been whipped up in the debate. I have with me a Press release issued by former Senator Bernie Kilgariff of the Northern Territory-a man whom I held and still hold in great respect. When dealing with the national flag, he said that it was essential for the flag not to be changed and that we should hang on to it. Of course, former Senator Kilgariff represented the Northern Territory of Australia in this Senate. The Northern Territory changed its flag and removed the Union Jack, with the full support of Senator Kilgariff and his colleagues in the Country-Liberal Party, without a referendum. Paul Everingham's Government-this is very much in the style of the kind of government Paul Everingham ran-did not even run a competition. It simply went out and selected a competent designer, Mr Ingpen. He designed the flag and the Northern Territory Government passed an Act of Parliament that put it into effect. Everyone in the Northern Territory said, `What a nice flag'. We have been saying ever since, and a great chorus of other people have also been saying, `What a nice flag'. I would like to turn the debate away a little from the preoccupation of removing the Union Jack. As Senator Ray again said, there is a total preoccupation, when we are talking about a new flag for Australia, with whether the Union Jack should be on it. I think there is value in simply discussion the need for a new Australian flag, no matter what it looks like. But I will freely concede that it is a very subjective subject. Everyone has a different view on it. For example, I remember an editorial in the Australian newspaper that tore apart the proposal that the colours of the flag should be green and gold. I do not want to see a green and gold flag but I can remember this thundering editorial in the Australian denouncing this garish-I think that was the word that was used-combination of colours that do not reflect Australia. In the part of Australia that I come from I can understand why those colours are totally appropriate. Senator McGauran —National Party colours. Senator COLLINS —The fact that they are the National Party colours does not even turn me off them, as it should. The colours are in fact strikingly Australian. If honourable senators climbed into a motor car in Alice Springs right now and drove out to a place like Yuendumu, they would drive through 400 miles of Australia that is green and gold. If one drives anywhere in the central desert areas of Australia after rain has fallen on the desert one can easily understand why those colours are so typically Australian because one just sees hundreds of miles of green and gold. It is a striking sight indeed with the acacias all out in bloom and the foliage that surrounds them-the green and gold of Australia. But the Australian newspaper, one of our major nationals, described that as being an appalling mix of colours and not at all Australian. I said in my first speech in this place that I want to see the Australian flag changed; I make no bones about it. The design that I favour, for all kinds of reasons, is the one which the Ausflag competition discovered was one of the most popular suggestions. I believe that, when the Australian flag is changed, as it will be changed, the design that I favour will probably be the chosen design, or one very close to it-that is, our current flag with the Union Jack taken from the top left-hand corner and the Federation star simply moved up to a central position on the flag and perhaps slightly enlarged. Of course, the seven points on that Federation star can stay, even when the Northern Territory becomes a State, and it will then simply represent the seven states of Australia. The simplicity and the beauty of that design are what appeal to me. It is a minimal change to the flag and it would be a striking and very easily identifiable symbol for Australia. I turn now to some of the remarks made by Senator Short. I take exception to the extent of the jingoism and the over the top sentiment contained in much of what he said. Senator Short said, `The presence of the Union Jack on our flag is the guarantee of our freedoms in Australia'. With great respect to Senator Short, I think that is somewhat of an overstatement. The institutions which preserve and protect the freedoms of this country are, in the main, this Parliament and the High Court of Australia. Senator Short —And where did our basic institutions come from, Senator? Senator COLLINS —I would like to respond to that interjection because there again is a gross distortion of historical fact and, I would have thought, a basic ignorance of the history of the founding of this Parliament and the discussions that went on at the many constitutional conventions that were held towards the end of last century, culminating in the Australian Constitution. In responding further to the interjection, I turn now to another of Senator Short's statement where he said, `The flag symbolises the political institutions in this country'. If we had a flag that symbolised the history of the establishment of the political institutions in this country we would be flying the stars and stripes, not the Union Jack on our flag. I ask Senator Wood, the Nuclear Disarmament Party senator present in the chamber, to restrain himself from saying that is what we might as well do now and make it obvious. Senator Wood —I wouldn't say that. Senator COLLINS —He did not say that. The reality is that our system of parliament is far more deliberately modelled on the United States system of parliament than it is on the British system. It is a common misbelief in Australia-I do not think this is shared by anybody in this chamber who is a legal practitioner-that we are modelled on the Westminster system. Our system is so dramatically different from the British system that it is ridiculous to make that statement. It is deliberately modelled on the British system, for one obvious reason. Senator Michael Baume —It is dramatically different from the American one too. Where are the Ministers in America? Senator Short —It is drawn on both the British and the American systems. Senator COLLINS —In response to the idiotic interjections opposite, it is a meld. We have a hybrid system. Let me remind honourable senators opposite of what I said. Senator Michael Baume —That is better. Now you are getting honest at last. Senator COLLINS —I will just repeat that I said-and the Hansard record will demonstrate it-that it is `more closely modelled on the American system of government than it is on the British system of government'. Senator Short —But it is not. Senator COLLINS —It is, Senator. The reality is that, if it had not been deliberately modelled on and drawn from the American system of government a federation of Australia would never have been established. The fundamental creation of this Senate chamber, which was modelled precisely on the American model, solved all of the sticking points in those constitutional conventions in terms of the balance of power between the proposed Commonwealth of Australia and the States. It was no good looking to the British system because the state system there simply does not operate in the same way. Senator Michael Baume —I like the word `precise'. There are no Ministers in the American system. Senator COLLINS —Once again, in response to that interjection, we have a hybrid system of government in Australia. I repeat that it is more closely modelled, in precise terms, on the American system of government than the British system of government. So there is a bit of a hole in that argument. To get to a very fundamental point-I do not think anyone has forgotten 1975-one could surely not forget or ignore that this chamber possesses awesomely greater powers than the House of Lords in the British system. Just to point out another fundamental difference between our system of government and the British system of government, we have a constitution. The British system of government does not have a constitution. I would describe that as a fundamental difference between the two systems. But which system does have a constitution, the American system has a constitution. Why does it have a constitution? It has a constitution because, when the States federated, they wanted a legal contract drawn up between the proposed federal government and the existing State governments, where the limit of the powers of those two systems were clearly laid out and would be arbitrated upon by a superior court which, in the American case, is known as the Supreme Court of the United States and, in our case, as the High Court of Australia. That was not an accident. It was modelled precisely on the American system of government. It provides the overriding reason why there is no British constitution, why there are no checks and balances in terms of a court-and there is a strong argument as to why there should be-as there are in this country. The British House of Commons could pass a law saying that black was white, or that the sun was not to come up in the morning, and there is no forum in Britain that can rule that such legislation is out of order. There is no system in Great Britain greater than the Parliament. There is in Australia. It is called the High Court, and it is modelled on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. So, I rest my case. I would suggest that the House of Representatives and the Senate-modelled very largely on the House of Representatives and the Senate of the American Congress, operating under an overriding constitution, determined by a superior court; a fairly comprehensive model under which we operate-are very different from the British system. So I take some difference with Senator Short about all of our parliamentary system and constitutional history being embodied in the Union Jack. It plainly is not so. Senator Short went on to talk about equality before the law, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, all being enshrined in some magical fashion in the Union Jack. Like many members of my Party and many other members of this Parliament, I am of Irish descent. I am an Irish Catholic Laborite. I am part of the great Irish family of the Australian Labor Party. There are lots of us about. As a result of that, I suppose, I am very conscious of the activities over the years of the British Government, the Government that Senator Short wants us to epitomise as everything that is fair, decent, honest and just. In the jingoistic fervour to cling to that kind of ideal, it irritates me that honourable senators can blind themselves to history. British history indeed embodies many things that are fundamentally honest and supportable, just and decent. But it also embodies dreadful injustice, unfairness, denial of rights, outright brutality and outright bestiality in some cases. It was after all-it is a matter of history-the British and not the Germans who invented concentration camps. If honourable senators doubt that, I would refer them to some excellent publications which are available in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bookshop, which will show them in graphic picture form how true that was when thousands of South African women, children and old people died miserable deaths locked up behind wire and denied food and even the most basic medical resources. That caused an absolute scandal in Great Britain at the time. That was British justice in South Africa. None of us has to be reminded of the Black and Tans and the way in which they operated in Ireland in the past, or in India, or in all of the other British colonial outposts around the world. The history of the British Empire is marked with some great institutions which are supportable; but it is not reasonable or fair to say that everything that is fair, honest, noble and patriotic in the world is enshrined under the Union Jack, because the Union Jack has flown over some despicable acts in the history of the world as well as the fair, honest and decent ones. The honourable senator went on to point out, as many others have done in this debate, that the Australian flag with the Union Jack has flown over battlefields and that people have fought under it, have shed blood under it, and have won races in the Olympic Games under it. Of course, that is true. Indeed, two Australian flags fly over the roof of this building, so I imagine that all sorts of things have happened under the Australian flag over the years, not just here but everywhere else in the country. The Australian flag does not depend for its standing, its status as a symbol of everything we hold to be decent and honest in this country, on the Union Jack in the top left-hand corner. I mentioned earlier my admiration for the Canadian flag. Most honourable senators will agree, I think, that it is a striking flag. I do not really see the relevance of the information that was given to us this afternoon that it took 40 years of fighting and arguing in Canada before that flag was accepted-the premise apparently being that we must argue and fight for 40 years over the same thing. It is about time that we tried just a little to cut loose from the apron strings that tie us to Great Britain. We in this country are very reluctant to do that. We are a group of very conservative, very careful people. We do not like change. Change always causes division, whether it is about the Australian flag or anything else. Let us face it: We became the Federation of Australia in 1901, but we did not become Australian citizens until 1949-almost half a century afterwards when the Australian Citizenship Act was passed in 1949 in this Parliament. For almost 50 years after Federation, Australian citizens carried British passports with `Australian Citizen' stamped on them. We did not have our own citizenship Act for 50 years after Federation. We have had Australian citizenship for only a bare 40 years. Of course, Australian Aboriginals have had it for even less. The year 1988 is the bicentennial of European occupation of this country. It also happens to be the twenty-first anniversary of the granting of citizenship to Australia's indigenous people, the Aboriginals, in May 1967. They are 21 years old this year as Australian citizens. Indeed we have a short constitutional and political history; I certainly concede that. I do not want to take up the Senate's time much longer on this matter. I simply say that I am not a died in the wool, at the barricades republican in my views on Australian government. I believe that the system of constitutional monarchy which Australia has adopted, overriding a parliamentary and high court system modelled on that of the United States-in other words, a hybrid model of government-with the same system, as we know it in this country, of responsible government, with Ministers and Cabinet and the Executive sitting in the Parliament, as with the British system, is a very good combination that works well in this country, and it should be retained. I am not going to go to the wall, either, on changing the Australian flag. The Government has indicated that it is not on its agenda to do so, as Senator Robert Ray has said, so I do not know what all the fuss is about here this afternoon. I simply conclude by saying that there is no doubt that one day the Australian flag will change. In my view, it might as well be now. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. Senator Collins misrepresented me on at least three occasions, and I should like to put the record straight. First, he said that my speech was identical to Senator Durack's speech in this place in 1984. I fully accept that Senator Durack's speech in 1984 was an excellent speech; so, I believe, was mine in November 1987. If Senator Collins compares the two, I think he will find that, whilst there are certain common parts, there are also significant differences, and that the two speeches are by no means identical. The second misrepresentation was that Senator Collins misquoted from my second reading speech. If I got him right, he said that I had said then that the presence of the Union Jack on the Australian flag guarantees our freedoms. What I said was: It is precisely the presence of the Union Jack, however, which symbolises the origins of our institutions that guarantee our freedoms which have been, and still are, the source of much of Australia's greatness. There is a significant difference between the two. Thirdly, Senator Collins said, or certainly implied, that in talking about the institutions I was speaking only of the political institutions. They are the only institutions he referred to. He categorised our political institutions as being American rather than British. He is wrong on that. It is accepted that our institutions are hybrids. The misrepresentation to which I draw attention is that when talking about institutions I said, as I think most Australians who follow subjects such as these would realise, that the basic institutions of this country certainly include our political institutions, but, equally importantly, the fundamental legal and judicial institutions on which we have drawn so much from our British origins. It is misleading in the extreme to narrow my comments, in the manner in which Senator Collins did, and suggest that I was just referring only to the political institutions. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(5.01) —As has been said this afternoon, the Flags Amendment Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament but became stuck in the House of Representatives because the Government chose to do nothing about it there. The debate today has been particularly interesting, given that the Government has been able to dredge up only two of its so-called right wing heavyweights. Their argument has been that they of course were in favour of changing the flag. If people throughout Australia are concerned that there should not be a change to the flag, they should really read the speeches of those two so-called right wing heavyweights. It is of great concern that Senator Collins purely and simply dismissed our concern for the flag and the future of the flag by calling it jingoistic fervour. This Bill aims to do something very basic to the principles of democracy. I suppose that Senator Collins is not all that concerned or hung up about democracy. As a nation we must be conscious of two things: democracy and the nationhood of Australia. The Bill's aim is to ensure that the national flag of Australia cannot be changed except with the direct agreement of the people of Australia voting in a referendum. Therefore that is the most fundamental element and the whole issue behind this Bill. Yet the Government will not agree to any consideration of the Australian people having the option to decide by referendum. Whether or not we are part of a majority that supports the retention of the present national flag, surely there can be no argument that the future of our most basic of national symbols must be decided by the people and not by the Parliament acting alone, or, even worse still, by administrative action by a government, and particularly one such as we have today. I regard as essential that the Australian people should be asked unambiguously whether they want to change the current flag before they are asked to choose between any other alternatives. Nobody who believes in democracy could allow the possibility of the people of Australia being presented with a fait accompli by a government that itself has decided on a change. A number of Australians remain unhappy with the manner in which our national anthem was changed. Honourable senators will recall that in 1977 a referendum was held for a preferred national song, and Advance Australia Fair was chosen. However, the specific question as to whether God Save the Queen should be abandoned altogether was not asked. However, to an unhealthy degree the full change has been effected by the actions of this Government since 1983. That question was specifically not in the 1977 referendum. I raise this matter not to seek to return to the previous anthem, but to note the principle that change ought not to be effected without a full, unambiguous, popular decision as to whether a current symbol should be discarded or changed. It goes without saying that the national flag is a far more potent and basic national symbol than a national anthem. For years the Opposition has consistently supported that principle. As I said, this Bill is identical to that introduced to the Senate by Senator Durack in 1984. It does no credit whatsoever to the Hawke Government that that Bill was never debated in the House of Representatives, and that the Government's stalling caused the Bill to disappear after last year's double dissolution. Australians can only draw the conclusion that this Government is either so partisan that it will not support any constructive legislative initiative from the Opposition, that it does not care about the democratic protection of our national symbol, or that is secretly wishes to implement a new flag against the wishes of a majority of Australians if necessary. If indeed the latter motives are real, the Australian Labor Party is being profoundly hypocritical when, like the Liberal Party, it uses the national flag on its logo. I think that we are entitled to be concerned when a senior Minister of this Government, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), is on record as stating his desire for a new flag. Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will state whatever he considers is popular for the day, having put his finger in his mouth and held it up to the wind. Though we all know that Australians do not want to change the flag, that is not enough for the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister wants to keep faith with Australians he must ensure by law that Australians will not have their flag taken from them by any means other than a referendum. A nation that alters its most basic of national symbols is one that has an identity crisis. Our flag has undergone only very minor change over 85 years. It is a flag that Australians have no trouble recognising and, let us face it, Australians are the only people who matter in this debate. It does not matter who else recognises our flag. It matters that Australians recognise our flag. Though a few self-appointed elitists do consider that Australia must change its identity, and with it its symbols of nationhood, ordinary Australians simply love their country the way it is and have a profound need for the continuity of its symbols. Senator Collins referred on a number of occasions during his speech to the Canadian flag. Australia is not an historically and culturally divided nation like Canada is. The example of the Canadian flag, of course, is so often held up as an example of why our flag should be changed. I believe there is no correlation between the two. Those who seek change, whether only as part of lobby groups or perhaps in secret, focus on the presence of the Union Jack as an integral part of our national flag. A feeble argument is often paraded that because not all Australians are of British stock, and because we are an independent nation, that this retention of our current flag is inappropriate. The Union Jack is of course an amalgamation of the crosses of England, Scotland and Ireland. According to Dr Charles Price of Canberra in 1986, these nations in 1978 supplied the racial origin of 77 per cent of Australians. He predicted that by 2008 72 per cent of Australians would still be of this Anglo-Celtic origin. The racial origins of Australians however are a peripheral factor in this whole question. What really matters is what the flag stands for. The Union Jack is a reminder not of ethnic origins but of the English, Irish and Scottish institutions that have shaped Australia over the past 200 years. If we asked where we would be without such British institutions as representative government and the rule of law, or what we would be like without our Irish rebels and pioneers, the answer would be that our whole identity would be profoundly different. Any Australian who values a liberal democracy under the rule of law must be grateful to those institutions handed down from Britain. Indeed, many thousands of Australians who came here from undemocratic nations appreciate this heritage more deeply than any of us. It is in fact a mark of our maturity as a nation that we can include in our national flag the flag of another nation with whom our historical relationship is so profound, without in any way denigrating our own independence. On the other hand, an obsession with parading our independence through alteration of a national symbol shows a lack of proper confidence. At a time when, necessarily, Australia is undergoing economic and social change it is all the more important that we are able to look to a symbol of continuity in our nationhood. Australians know enough of their history to appreciate deeply that our national flag was a symbol in 1914 and again in 1939 when, as a nation, we were tested in fire. By necessity, changing the flag involves a degree of repudiation of the past, a past that the great majority of Australians see as something of which to be proud. In a democracy there can be no objection to people agitating for change to a national symbol. We are not saying that people who believe they want a change should not say that. All we are saying is that it is essential that the only means that should be used is the persuasion of a firm majority of Australians that the flag should be changed. We are not trying to silence anybody, but let us put it to the vote. This Bill will ensure that any arguments for change must be directed to the whole community, not to a government that might alter our flag and its usage in an undemocratic manner. The Australian flag as it stands today is the property of the Australian people. They alone must decide whether we need a new flag. This Bill will ensure that. That is why I am absolutely flabbergasted that this Government will not agree to the Bill. It is not good enough that the current Flags Act allows the Government to advise the Governor-General to `appoint such other flags and ensigns of Australia as he sees fit'. In effect, this allows a government to denigrate the existing flag by parading alternatives, not even sanctioned by the Parliament let alone the people. It is no accident that this Bill will ensure not only that the people have the final say by way of referendum but also that any such additional flags will be the subject of regulation and, thus, review by the Parliament. The Bill will prevent the appointment of any alternative flag as representative of the Commonwealth of Australia or of its government. We have a duty to ensure that the flag cannot be altered by backdoor administrative measures. Even honourable senators who may want a new flag have a moral obligation to support a Bill that gives control of the destiny of our leading national symbol to the people of Australia. I repeat: why will this Government-and Heaven knows where the Australian Democrats stand on this issue because we never know where they stand on any issue until the eleventh hour-not allow the people of Australia to decide this important issue? I wish to finish just by reading from an anonymous poem sent to me. I believe that the poem which is entitled `Keep the flag' encapsulates a lot of the thought and belief of Australians about our most important national symbol. The poem is as follows: Our flag bears the stars that blaze at night In our southern sky of blue, And a little old flag in the corner That's part of our heritage, too. It's for the English, the Scots and the Irish Who were sent to the ends of the earth, The rogues and schemers, the doers and dreamers, Who gave modern Australia birth. And you, who are shouting to change it, You don't seem to understand, It's the flag of our law and our language, Not the flag of a faraway land. (Though there are plenty of people who'll tell you, How when Europe was plunged into night That little old flag in the corner Was their symbol of freedom and light.) It doesn't mean we owe allegiance To a forgotten imperial dream. We've the stars to show where we're going And the old flag to show where we've been. I believe that this Bill is particularly important to the people of Australia. Certainly, it is something that I would hope to see passed through the Senate. I hope that the Government will take it seriously enough this time to allow it to be debated and voted on in the House of Representatives so we can, once and for all, see where this Government stands in regard to this important part of Australia. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(5.14) —I make a promise to the Senate-probably I should not do that-to try never to use the word `hypocrisy' in this chamber. It seems that every time we have a debate the screams of `hypocrisy' fly in both directions. The term seems to have little relevance because hypocrisy seems to be par for the course. I promise to try not to accuse anyone of hypocrisy ever again. Senator Knowles said that the flag is a more potent symbol than the national anthem. It does not surprise me that some people think that this is so. As individuals people are bowed silent before the flag, whereas a national anthem is something that people sing together and participate in. I prefer symbols which are active, in which people participate, which bring people together, rather than symbols which cause people to be silent. I spoke at a college in Bathurst recently. I was asked about Australian republicanism and whether Australia should have a republican Constitution. My answer to that question is the same as to the question of whether we should change the flag. I do not think that it is a republican Constitution or a different flag that we need, we need a republican consciousness in this country. This nation has never declared its independence. There has never been a declaration of Australian independence-not even in 1901 when a second-rate aristocrat in the rain in a park declared himself Governor-General. There were no cries of independence for Australia. There were cries only for the British to come to Australian aid. Politicians were at pains to tell people voting on whether we should become a federation that we would still be British, that we would still be part of the British Empire and that we would not be all alone. As John Pilger has said in his book, it is not surprising that the anniversary of Federation is rarely remembered, and even less often celebrated. It never was anything real in terms of the independence of this country. We have heard all this debate about the Union Jack. However, all the foul oppression of the British jack boot in South Africa, Northern Ireland and elsewhere was made no sweeter by the flying of the Union Jack. Nor does it make the oppression here any sweeter. We talk about heritage and the history of a nation. It is said that the changing of the flag will be a denial of our heritage. We have heard that it is a symbol of our sovereignty and that it reflects our independence and identity. If we want to have a flag which represents our identity and clearly demonstrates our independence perhaps we should move the Union Jack down the flag a little bit and put the Stars and Stripes above it; perhaps there should be a small Japanese flag there somewhere to show how much of our country is owned by overseas interests. There has been talk about sovereignty and denial of heritage. We do not understand what independence means. We do not understand what sovereignty means. We have never been a sovereign and independent nation. We are not now a sovereign and independent nation. That is why we are totally blind to Aboriginal demands for sovereignty and independence. We do now know what they are saying and what they mean because we do not recognise it. Dr Timoci Bavadra was in Parliament House the other day. We saw the trampling of Fijian democracy and did very little as a nation to rescue democracy in Fiji. We did very little then and we are doing very little now, despite the so-called common British heritage of Fiji and Australia. It was Britain which created the Council of Chiefs which is so prominent in politics in Fiji at the moment. That is its British heritage. The Aboriginal people have been here and have had ownership of this country for more than 40,000 years. Recent discoveries near here, at Lake George, have shown evidence of settlement going back 110,000 years. That is a very long heritage. Someone referred to comparatively recent arrivals, meaning those who were not from England, Ireland or Scotland but apparently more recently. It seems to me that, in the scheme of 110,000 years, one could not get more comparatively recent than 200 years. It seems to me that, when we talk about changing the flag, we should talk about creating a flag which also represents in it 110,000 years of carefully managing this country in a way that we have not been able to do in 200 years. In the 200 years that we have been in this country we have virtually destroyed it. In the debate on the conservation legislation, the loss of forests and soil erosion was catalogued. That has happened in only the last 200 years. It is ironic that in the first week, between the time members of the First Fleet landed at Botany Bay and their decision to sail to Port Jackson, they left behind them felled trees, sawpits and holes in the ground. Within days of European arrival we were digging up the earth and felling trees and we have never stopped doing so. What about that heritage? Do we want to put that in a flag? If we truly want a flag which reflects the history of this land-surely any Australian has to feel some sort of connection with the country in which he or she lives rather than with the historical culture from which the original invaders came-and if we truly have some allegiance to this country, whose history goes back 110,000 years, we should reflect that in whatever flag we have. I would rather replace the Union Jack with the Aboriginal flag. Its top left corner denotes the place of honour. I would rather have the Aboriginal flag in that corner. It is black, representing the colour of the people, it depicts the sun in the centre, and it is red, representing the colour of the earth and the blood that has been spilt on the earth. I think that that would be a very apt way in which to recognise this country's heritage in a flag. However, I do not want to impose that on the Aboriginal people. It is up to them to decide whether they want their colours in our flag. We must come to terms with our own identity. People have talked about an identity crisis. There is an identity crisis, but one does not solve it by hiding behind a flag; one solves it by taking a truthful look at our history and heritage and by making a realistic representation of what we are, what we have been and hopefully, more optimistically, what we wish to be in the future. Perhaps we should have little flags symbolising foreign bases on our soil. Perhaps we should have little stars and stripes for each foreign base. Perhaps we should have a little mark representing where some foreign mining company owns huge chunks of our country. Senator Macklin —A hole in the flag. Senator WOOD —A hole in the flag for Maralinga. Perhaps there should be a hole in the flag for a spot in the country in which we cannot live any longer because it is radioactive. Australians cannot go there because the British blew the blazes out of it and left it uninhabitable. I am not quite sure where one would put the hole. Let us not hide behind a flag. Let not our patriotism be based on waving a piece of colourful cloth. Let us face it: a flag is a piece of cloth. It is a coloured piece of cloth. What meaning it has is what meaning people vest in it. Its meaning does not exist by virtue of what it is; its meaning exists by virtue of what people believe it means to them. On some occasions people may feel like burning the flag and on others they may feel like waving it. Its meaning changes and is not absolute. What I call for is not a republican constitution, a republican flag or a new flag. What I call for is some real act of independence, some real declaration of independence, rather than grovelling to what at one time was the British Empire and is now the empire of Uncle Sam. We should become an independent and sovereign nation not only in word but in deed-in what we do. We should start by getting rid of the bases, giving Aboriginal people there sovereignty and learning from Aboriginal people what sovereignty and cultural identity mean in terms of the survival of values through 200 years of oppression. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.29) —There have been a number of views today about various senators' approach to our Constitution, our flag, our national anthem and various other important national symbols. It has been an interesting debate. I am concerned at the approach of a couple of Government senators. Senator Ray is on the record as having said today that this is a trivial matter. He then resorted to abuse of two of my colleagues, Senators Crichton-Browne and Bishop, both of whom, I think, have managed to deal with that criticism quite effectively and do not need any help from me. Senator Collins accused those on this side of the chamber-I might say at some length-of jingoism. There was further talk, as we heard just now from Senator Wood, of being tied to apron-strings. First of all, I find that a bit of a nonsense. Secondly, it is irrelevant to the debate on the flag. I rise to speak very briefly to ensure that I am on the record as very strongly supporting the Flags Amendment Bill 1987. I totally reject the charges of triviality and jingoism but I am not ashamed that I approach this matter with a fairly conservative air. I think most Australians would wish to see this approach in dealing with our national flag. This is an important piece of legislation. The flag may simply be a piece of cloth, and I understand Senator Wood's approach when he refers to it as that. But he also said that the importance of that piece of cloth is what it means to Australians. To me, the flag represents our history, and I do not intend to go into this in detail. But, clearly, it is particularly important that the flag should show where we came from as a nation. What we have fought for as a nation is also extremely important. To me, the place in our history that our flag occupies is very important. I believe that our flag has a precious place in the hearts of most Australians. But that does not mean to say that in due course, and from time to time, there will not be proposals for change. Senator Wood made some proposals today, most of which I would not be very happy with. But that is part of the democratic process and it is right and proper that it should take place. I think it is only proper that we ensure that the people of this country are the ones who have the power to decide whether the flag should be changed. I am not so concerned about the detail of how it should be changed, but the power to change something as important as our flag should reside purely in the hands of the people. To me, one of the sad and, I think, incredible things about this debate is that quite clearly this Government is not prepared to put that power into the hands of the people. It is not prepared to trust the people and all of the bluster that we have heard from Government speakers cannot conceal that basic fact. We want the people to have that power but the Government does not, and I condemn it for that. We have heard a lot lately about whether or not the Government has been listening to and communicating with people at the grass roots level. Whether or not it has, it clearly does not trust the people at the grass roots level. I also condemn the Government for that. I am very proud to support this Bill so that protection of the Australian flag can be placed and remain in the hands of the Australian people. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.33) —I strongly support Senator Short's Flags Amendment Bill 1987. This Bill is neither for nor against the flag. I think people listening to this debate would be astounded by the line taken by members of the Australian Labor Party that somehow this Bill is a declaration that the present flag should never be changed, that it is immutable. That is not in fact the purpose of the legislation. This debate has been corrupted by members on the other side of the chamber. Senator Wood, the nuclear disarmament senator who has spoken in the debate, has no knowledge of what this Bill is all about. The Bill restores to the people the right to decide whether the flag is just a bit of cloth, in his terms, or whether it is meaningful. Heaven forbid that people like the nuclear disarmament senator should have the power to determine something that is dear to so many people in Australia. I would hope that his attitude to giving the Australian people the right to determine their flag will be reflected in the votes that he gathers in his authoritarian way at the next election. The purpose of this Bill is simply to prevent changes from occurring to Australia's national flag without the prior consent of the Australian people through a referendum. It preserves the rights not only of the Parliament but also of the people of Australia to have a democratic say in any change. So why should the Government oppose this Bill? Why did it allow it to die in the other place? Is it because it wants once again to sneak through a change that so many Australians are determined that they do not want? As Senator Short pointed out, the Labor Party's own platform clearly says that it does want such a change. This is evident from the Labor Party's 1986 platform which states: In the context of the preparations for Bicentennial celebrations, to initiate and support moves to establish with popular acceptance an Australian flag . . . I emphasise the words `with popular acceptance'. Why does the Government reject the concept of a referendum if it is concerned about popular acceptance? What can be clearer evidence of popular acceptance than the holding of a referendum? So the Labor Party, which clearly wants to change the flag, which pretends that it wants to change the flag in the context of popular support, is not prepared to allow popular support or opposition to be expressed in the only effective democratic way that is available, and that is through a referendum. We have heard people say that they will not use the word `hypocrisy'. What can be more hypocritical than a party saying that it wants popular acceptance for a change in the Australian flag and then denying the Australian people the right to express acceptance or rejection? As I say, this underlines the total hypocrisy and humbug of all of the people on the other side of the chamber who will vote against this Bill. All we are saying is that we want to put to the democratic test the proposition that the Labor Party maintained in its 1986 policy platform. We want to make certain that before any changes take place, there will be popular acceptance-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under the sessional order for consideration of General Business having expired, the Senate will proceed to further consideration of Government Business. Senator WOOD(New South Wales) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. Senator Michael Baume said in his speech on the Flags Amendment Bill 1987 that I said that the flag was just a bit of cloth with no meaning. In fact, I said that the flag had a great deal of meaning but that the meaning was in terms of what people felt for it, not in absolute terms of what the piece of cloth contained. The flag has a great deal of meaning to the people who wave it or burn it, depending on their point of view. Whatever meaning the flag has is measured in terms of what people think of it, not in absolute terms of what it contains. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to make three amendments to the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974, each resulting from developments since the last major revision of the Act in 1986. The Government continues to attach great importance to ensuring that the Act is effectively achieving its aim of providing consumers and business people with an appropriate measure of protection against unscrupulous traders. The first of the proposed amendments provides that a corporation (and in some cases an individual) shall not, in trade or commerce, falsely represent that goods or services are of a particular value. This amendment clarifies the scope of the prohibitions contained in paragraphs 53 (a) and (aa) of the Act. Justice Ryan of the Federal Court of Australia, in Ducret v Chaudhary's Oriental Carpet Palace Pty Ltd (1987) ATRP 40-804, indicated that a representation as to value may be a representation as to `quality' as defined in the existing section 53, but whether it does or not depends upon the facts of each case. This amendment should remove any doubt that s. 53 prohibits false representations as to the value of goods or services. A number of States have enacted or are about to enact Fair Trading legislation which mirrors the provisions of Part V, Division 1 of the Trade Practices Act. This State legislation, promoted through the Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Minister, extends the operation of the consumer protection provisions to cover all traders whether corporate or not. The Government strongly supports the development of such complementary uniform legislation, and has advised the States of the proposed amendment to section 53. The second amendment proposes the repeal of section 65u of the Act. That section is a sunset clause on the application of the product safety and product information provisions in the Act to food and drink for human consumption, which will take effect on 1 July 1988. Section 65u was originally inserted at the request of some sectors of the food industry in order to give the States the opportunity to put specific food recall legislation in place. These industry sectors argued at that time that food recalls should be controlled under State food law rather than under the Trade Practices Act. Division 1a of Part V of the Act is concerned with product safety standards, the banning of unsafe consumer products and the recall of consumer products with safety related defects. The essential elements of the recall provisions are mandatory notification of safety-related product recalls and a reserve power to require further recall action if there is evidence that voluntary recall procedures have not removed the risk to consumer safety. Foods and beverages are essential consumer products and, to provide the level of consumer protection from health and safety risks which consumers reasonably expect, it is not desirable to omit foods and beverages from the reach of the Act, unless, of course, it was clear that food and beverage safety, particularly in relation to recalls, was assured by some other protection mechanism. This is not the case. The hoped for uniform food recall legislation at State level has not eventuated. I am advised that, at present, some States do not have specific food recall powers and that, in any case, existing State powers are not uniform. Food and beverage distribution is of a national character. State borders are artificial in such a national market. Even in the case of so called `local' food products, one can never be sure that a potentially lethal food product has not crossed a State border. Australians travel interstate extensively and food purchased in one State may be consumed in another. Cities and towns close to borders are often supplied food and beverages from the adjoining States. If a safety-related recall becomes necessary, then the recall is generally national in character and national co-ordination of such recalls is essential. If section 65u is not repealed, the Commonwealth would not necessarily even know of a food safety problem and the recall may be conducted on a State basis with little or no co-ordination to ensure national consumer protection. As mentioned previously, not to repeal section 65u would have the effect of removing foods and beverages from the scope of Division 1a of the Act entirely from 1 July 1988. That is, not only would the recall powers of the Act not apply to food and beverages, but the power to prevent the supply of unsafe food products would also be lost. This would be a cause for great concern, as it would mean that the Commonwealth would be powerless to prevent the supply of a food product clearly shown to threaten the health and safety of consumers. There is a clear and very reasonable expectation by Australians that the Commonwealth would be able to protect consumers nationally from unsafe consumer goods, including unsafe foods and beverages. This is not to say that the States do not have a legitimate role in food safety. Indeed, the States have a primary role in this regard, particularly through the adoption of the Australian Food Standards Code and State health and food inspection systems. However, the reserve ability to protect consumers nationally from defective foods and beverages, just as for any other product, should remain with the Commonwealth under the Trade Practices Act. The last amendment is administrative in nature, resulting from the transfer of responsibility for the enforcement of Part V, Division 1a of the Act from the Trade Practices Commission to the Federal Bureau of Consumer Affairs. Consistent with the practice of the Commission, the amendment will allow persons authorised by the Secretary to the Department to institute prosecutions for alleged contraventions of the Act without being required to obtain the prior consent in writing of the Minister. The usual requirement to obtain Ministerial consent ensures that private prosecutions for contraventions of the Act are only instituted in accordance with the Commonwealth's prosecution policy. There is no need for this requirement when prosecutions are commenced by officers from the Commonwealth agencies responsible for the enforcement of the Act, such as the Federal Bureau. Financial Impact Statement The proposals in this Bill will not require any additional expenditure by the Government. Any additional work involved in ensuring compliance with the amended provisions of the Act should be capable of being absorbed by existing resources. Further, the proposals will not impose any new costs on industry, as this Bill does not place any regulatory burden on business other than that which has existed since the last major revision of the Act in 1986. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill, and commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 15 March, on motion by Senator Bolkus: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.39) —The Parliamentary Precincts Bill 1988 provides for the delineation of an area to be known as the parliamentary precincts over which the Presiding Officers of the Federal Parliament will have management and control. I note from the speakers list that Senator McMullan, who is also a senator from the Australian Capital Territory, and I are to speak on this legislation. I would not like it to be interpreted that we are the only senators who care about the new Parliament House or its precincts. I think this probably reflects the fact that we realise the importance of this building to the Australian Capital Territory. It is a very significant part of the national capital and a significant attraction to visitors. We also note the importance of that to this area. In the past there has not been such a definitive statement of the boundaries of the parliamentary precincts and this has raised questions from time to time of just where the control of the Presiding Officers begins and ends in relation to matters affecting the management of the buildings and the grounds of the Parliament. This Bill makes quite clear the extent of the parliamentary precincts which will encompass virtually the entire area enclosed by State Circle and all the buildings and structures within that area. The Opposition supports this Bill. The need for a defined parliamentary precinct has been recognised for a number of years. It was picked up by the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House, which is now the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House, of which I have been a member for some time. The Committee recognised this as a matter that needed attention. It also recognised that issues such as the extent of parliamentary control over the land around the buildings, traffic control and access, control of persons in the parliamentary area and police powers or activities were matters which required clarification. They probably required it for this building; but they certainly will for the new one. As long ago as May 1978 the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges also called for legislation to define the boundaries of the Parliament and in 1984 the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended: . . . the precincts of the present Parliament House and of the new Parliament House, be defined authoritatively. The need for such definition stems in part from the doubts which have existed in relation to Parliament's powers in a number of respects. These include the capacity of the Presiding Officers to compel police to carry out their orders, including the power to compel prosecution. The Parliamentary Precincts Bill establishes the management and control of the precincts in the Presiding Officers of the Parliament-that is, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate. Generally, the area will be subject to the laws of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). There are a number of exceptions which are enumerated and apparent from this Bill. Agreement between the Presiding Officers and the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Protective Services and the Director of Public Prosecutions for law enforcement in the precincts may be made under this Bill. In addition, the control of the ministerial wing is subject to agreement between the Presiding Officers and the relevant Minister. I think this aspect needs some clarification which I hope we will get in the committee stage of the Bill because it is something new. I would like to know exactly what power it is envisaged that the Executive will have in relation to dealings with the President and the Speaker. In addition to the provision for a parliamentary precinct, the Bill will also have the effect of extending the parliamentary zone. Of course this is quite necessary. The new zone will include the land of the parliamentary precinct in addition to the land contained in the parliamentary triangle bordered by Commonwealth Avenue, Kings Avenue and the southern shores of Lake Burley Griffin. In the area within the zone no buildings may be constructed or work undertaken without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I certainly support that. Of all the area of the ACT, that triangle very significantly relates to the national capital. Of course the people of Canberra have an interest in what happens there as well, but I do not think it can be denied that it has status within the concept of its being the national capital. It is appropriate that such a restriction should be placed on the area including the national Parliament and other significant institutions. While the area forms part of the physical city of Canberra its national character demands this. It must be recalled that the Federal Parliament's place here, the Federation, the establishment of a national capital is significant and nobody can deny that Canberra has developed as a beautiful modern city. It is important to understand that is not only the home of the Parliament, but also home to 260,000 people who live here as part of the national capital and we do take an interest in what happens in this area. Zoning otherwise and planning at present rest with the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC). That organisation will need to continue to play a significant role in the planning and recommendations which will come before the Parliament for any further developments within the parliamentary zone or the extension of it. Of course, the NCDC is also heavily involved in planning in other parts of Canberra. Undoubtedly, this building will have an impact on some of the residential areas in its vicinity. This has been the case where there has been expansion, particularly at Barry Drive which, when I came here, was full of houses. It is now all office buildings. There are also other parts of Canberra where there has been expansion. I wonder what the future will be for State Circle and the roads nearby-Canberra Avenue and perhaps even down as far as Manuka. Those areas may, in time, seek to take on a different character. There has also been some concern expressed by people living in the vicinity of the new Parliament House about the likelihood that it may develop for use for professional purposes. So far inquiries to the NCDC have indicated that although it expects changes to the character of the area, there are no immediate plans for any development. However, I think that the NCDC should take note of what has happened in other areas of Canberra and give some thought to the future, rather than letting any form of trouble erupt in the first place. Some thought should be given to the development of a draft policy plan for the area so that people who are involved can have some idea of what will occur rather than merely having to wait until there are sufficient problems to demand that something be done. It would be unfortunate if the parliamentary precincts and the zone, which are being so clearly defined by the Bill, get into any form of difficulties because of the development of the surrounding area. When speaking of the surrounding area I refer to clause 4 (2) (a) which specifically indicates that the arcs by the outer edge will form the boundary of the precincts at the top of the retaining wall. I am curious to know, and the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Ray) no doubt will be able to tell us, why the precincts are determined at the top of the retaining wall rather than at the bottom. Logic to me would have required that it be the bottom of the wall. I can envisage, as has already happened, vandals painting the walls and graffiti appearing on them. Who will be responsible for removing it? What if there are conflicts in relation to that area? It seems to me that the bottom of the wall would have been the logical place. I certainly hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions in relation to the maintenance of those walls which surround the building. I think that the area of the tunnel is specifically excluded-that is, the road part, but not the actual walls. From the point of view of traffic I understand that. The other matter I want to refer to is the future of this building, which is part of the parliamentary triangle. I hope that the Government will tell us before we leave this building what will happen to it. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to tell us what will happen to it. Senator Robert Ray —To what? Senator REID —This building. Senator Robert Ray —Do you want the next Melbourne Cup winner at the same time? Senator REID —That would be helpful. The sub-committee of the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House recommended that it be-loosely summing it up-a political and constitutional museum. I hope that it can be developed in that way so that the political history of this country, which is so closely associated with the building, can be displayed here in a way that is meaningful, in particular to school children who visit Canberra, so that they can get some concept of Australia from 1927 to 1988. I hope that in a portion of it we might have the memorabilia that remains of the 1901 to 1927 era and that the portraits and objects that are meaningful will still be in this building. It will then be an additional significant tourist attraction in this area. It is important, though, that these decisions are made before we vacate the building and it is left in a slight shambles. I can imagine some of my friends taking the things they want and leaving the things they do not want, but if we are not careful this place may well look a bit of a mess. I would be very sorry indeed if that occurred. I urge the Government to make the decision and the commitment as to what will happen to this building. It is important. Of course, maintenance and upkeep will be expensive, but if it is to be retained, that expense will have to be met in any event. I think it would be wasteful to delay the future use of the building, and lock it up. I would have hoped the interdepartmental committee would have reported to the Government a long time ago. Specifically though, we are discussing the precincts of the new building, and their definition. As I have indicated, the Opposition supports the Bill. We recognise the need for the powers of the Presiding Officers. I hope to get some answers to the limitations placed upon the Presiding Officers by this reference to the control of the ministerial wing being dealt with somewhat differently from the way any part of this building has been dealt with in the past. We support also the concept of the necessary extension of the parliamentary zone. Senator McMULLAN(Australian Capital Territory)(5.51) —I join my Australian Capital Territory colleague Senator Reid in supporting the Parliamentary Precincts Bill. I would also like to join her in her concern about the development and planning implications of the new Parliament House and the need for the National Capital Development Commission, or its successor body under self-government, to be conscious of and involved in the planning consequences. The Bill is important to Parliament itself. It deals with the problem of what area the Executive Government hands over to Parliament. It has been mentioned both in the House of Representatives and here that it is very important to the traditions of a Westminster parliamentary system that the Speaker and the President, as the representatives of the Parliament, retain their exclusive jurisdiction and control within the Houses of Parliament. The recognition of the need to define these boundaries goes back quite a long way. In 1969 the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House brought down a report which said: Down through the years it has been an embarrassment to the Parliament to lack control or to be unsure of the extent of its control over the area of land surrounding the building. The Committee recommended that: . . . the desirability of having this power incorporated in a statute be considered at an early date. I am not sure that even by our normal leisurely standards 19 years can be regarded as an early date. Nevertheless that matter has come forward. In my brief period here and in my experience of Parliament in a previous occupation examples have been referred to me of failures of definition that have been a matter of some controversy or inconvenience. Of course, it is not a matter of my personal experience, but in Australian Senate Practice Odgers refers to a case brought before a Canberra magistrate in 1974, who held that the roadway outside Parliament House was a public street. He said that the precincts of Parliament House were actually within the walls of the building, taking the definition that a precinct was enclosed by walls. I noticed also in 1974 that the then President and my good friend, Senator O'Byrne, referred to instances when senators had been obstructed by journalists and cameramen coming to and going from Parliament. It was very prescient of him because it happens somewhat more these days. He referred to this as a possible obstruction of the right of people's access and he was concerned about the control of the precincts. I suspect that I and many of my colleagues would be more concerned if we were never obstructed by journalists on the way in than if it were to happen too often. Nevertheless, in a slightly less serious vein it is an indication of the need to have serious, effective control over the precincts and therefore to have the precincts defined. It is important as a matter of principle, as an assertion of the supremacy of the Parliament over the Executive. Obviously, with my Australian Capital Territory colleague, Senator Reid, I want to refer to the importance of this Bill, the development of the new Parliament House and the implications for this building, for the Australian Capital Territory and for the region. It is important to remember that many of the benefits that will flow from the development of the new Parliament House and the decisions that are made about the utilisation of this building have economic and social implications beyond the Australian Capital Territory, into the surrounding regions of New South Wales. The decisions made following the completion of the new Parliament House are very important for the building industry and for employment in the Australian Capital Territory. The new Parliament House building itself, the precincts of which we are defining in this Bill, directly, through its continuing operations with the very large employment taking place within it, will make a continuing and substantial contribution to the economy of the Australian Capital Territory and will do so indirectly through the services provided by contractors, suppliers, lessees and licensees. Relating to that, I want to take up a matter arising under clause 7 which is an important point and not unrelated to the point made by Senator Reid. In the very proper exercise which is defined in this Bill, whereby the Parliament can, through its Presiding Officers, issue leases and licences for the operation of commercial enterprises within these precincts, we have to give consideration to the impact of the operation of those leases and licences within the precincts on the existing businesses within the region. A number of businesses, finance and others, have grown up in Barton, Kingston and Manuka, which provide services to a great extent to people from Parliament. Until recently I was the manager of a building in the Barton area in which resided both an office of Australian Airlines and an office of the Commonwealth Bank. Both those offices were heavily frequented by people from the existing Parliament House. The commercial operations of those enterprises and others will be affected. That does not mean the change should not take place-it already has and it is beneficial that the leases and licences should be exercised within the new Parliament House. It is a necessary service to the very large number of people who work there. But I draw attention to the fact that there are potential commercial implications for other businesses in the region and it is a matter that should be noted as being of concern. I want to refer also, like Senator Reid, to the importance of the decisions to be made fairly soon about the use of this building, a building that comes within the zone as defined in this Bill. I have always been sympathetic to the proposal that it should be developed as some form of constitutional museum. However, I am interested in the fact that people are coming forward with perhaps more enterprising versions of that idea. I do not want to endorse any particular commercial proposal, because that would be entirely inappropriate, but, as many senators are aware, there is a proposal for the development of a politics in action centre here which would involve a democracy theatre, a Prime Minister's gallery, a section on the political process, and what is fascinatingly called a parliamentarians' hall of fame. I am not sure how many of my current colleagues would qualify but it is certainly important. Another suggested section is politics and humour, for which I would not qualify, but some of my colleagues would, and there are other proposed sections such as politics and the media, political systems and an education centre, as well as the normal tourist facilities for the sale of souvenirs, et cetera. I do not necessarily endorse that particular proposal but I refer to it because of the importance to the tourist industry in the Australian Capital Territory of the use of the two Parliament House buildings together. In 1987 the old Parliament House, that is this building, was the third most popular attraction, attracting almost 473,000 visitors to the Australian Capital Territory. The sixth most important attraction was the new Parliament House, with 377,000 visitors. In this zone, the National Gallery and the High Court were fourth and fifth, and the National Library was the ninth most important attraction in the Territory. So it is very important that an early, sensible and attractive decision is made about the use of this building to sustain that important impetus to the tourist industry and therefore to the region. I recommend that those matters must be given important and early consideration. This is not a controversial matter on which I shall take up the Senate's time any further. I wished to raise the matters that I thought were important for the Parliament and for the people whom I represent here in the Australian Capital Territory. I welcome the Bill, which will clarify a longstanding shortcoming. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.01) —I thank honourable senators who have spoken in this debate on the Parliamentary Precincts Bill for their support. Senator Reid raised one or two points in her remarks and put me on notice that she would be raising a couple of other points later. One of the major queries was why we defined the precinct at the top of the wall rather than at the bottom of the wall. It was primarily for patrolling reasons. It is easier to patrol inside the top of the wall than to have all the patrols going outside the wall. A lot of thought was given to exactly where the boundaries would go. Even more thought was given to that than to the redesign of Calare and other electorates some years ago. That is the primary reason. If one has the design of Parliament House in mind, one realises that it is a lot easier to define the boundary as being at the top of the wall and to patrol around there and be responsible for that, because if it is defined at the bottom of the wall one would have patrols outside it. Does one patrol 6 feet or 8 feet from the wall? That would depend on where the road cuts in and all the rest of it. I think that is the reason for that definition. The second query concerned the relationship between the Presiding Officers and the executive wing. I notice that portfolio Minister West went to that point in another place. The debate there clearly indicates that this is a matter for negotiation between the relevant Minister in charge of the executive wing, who in this case at present is myself, and the Presiding Officers. But if we do not reach agreement, then the Presiding Officers, by virtue of this Bill, will have the say. At present work is being done on various memoranda of understanding-one relating to the Australian Protective Services, one with the Australian Federal Police, one with the Director of Public Prosecutions, and finally one on a memorandum of understanding, as I understand it, between the officers of the Parliament-the Speaker and the President-and the officers of the Executive in respect of the new executive wing. I understand that those memoranda of understanding will not be completed for some weeks. In the end, they will have to go to the Attorney-General's Department for checking, but I understand that the discussions-negotiations would be putting it on too high a plane-are proceeding very amicably and we look forward to a fairly prompt result. Both Senator McMullan and Senator Reid referred to the future of this building. Probably the biggest problem is that there are so many alternatives, all the way down to privatising the place via Simon Townsend through to constitutional museums, knocking down this part of the building or that part of the building. These are not easy decisions to make. As we all know, a couple of sections of this building are full of asbestos and are a menace to man and boy. Do we leave those here? Do we give in to the barbarians from the Department of Finance who would just like to utilise this as office space and nothing else? All those ideas are floating around. I am confident that at the end of the day the more enlightened people will prevail. This matter in some form or other will come back to Cabinet in the next few weeks. There are those who would like to turn this place into a major tourist attraction: perhaps that is the wrong expression; part of an integral tourist attraction-with the High Court, the National Gallery, the new Parliament House and the National Science and Technology Centre. It is a marvellous opportunity to have a rounded tourist complex. I have a self-interest here. I would very much like to see, as I mentioned to Senator Short the other day, the Electoral Education Section of the Australian Electoral Commission come here. I am sure that there are many other ways in which to utilise this space. I am very much in favour of the living museum idea. I would like these chambers to be retained as they are; I do not want to see them roped off. I want the public to come and sit where Senator Puplick is sitting. I do not want members of the public to get ideas about taking pre-selection from me or getting too uppity. However, I think that is the sort of thing we need. We need something to attract tourists which is not too expensive and which would get school children through here. I cannot at this stage answer Senator Reid's threshold question `Have we made up our minds?' in order to give an answer tonight. There are a lot of things Senator Reid may like to know tonight. Unfortunately, this is not a matter on which I can help her. Senator Colston —Tomorrow's race results. Senator ROBERT RAY —I suggested another matter earlier, Senator Colston; the winner of the next Melbourne Cup would be just as hard to predict. I thank honourable senators for their support and commend the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.06) —Clause 2 of the Bill, under the heading `Commencement', is divided into two parts. One identifies those portions of the Act which will receive royal assent, namely, clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7. The rest of the provisions will commence on a date or day to be fixed by a proclamation. I note specifically, though, that the portion which will proceed by way of proclamation is clause 6 which says: The precincts are under the control and management of the Presiding Officers . . . Subsection (3) says that in respect of the ministerial wing the functions will be given to the Presiding Officers: subject to any limitation and conditions agreed between the Presiding Officers and the Minister. I envisage a situation where the combined weight of the Presiding Officers does not equal that of the Minister. Could the Minister tell the Committee anything more than he has indicated so far? I note his comment that where there is conflict, the view of the Presiding Officers will prevail, but I recognise the weight that the Executive can bring to bear on the Presiding Officers. Is it envisaged that the control of the ministerial wing may, for example, be handed over to the Minister? Will that be the agreement, or will the Presiding Officers have control of that wing, but from time to time on matters of usage it will be by agreement with the Minister? Is this a way of saying that the ministerial wing will not be under the control of the Presiding Officers but under the control of the Executive? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.08) —This is still a matter for discussion between the two arms of government in drawing up the memorandum. As I recollect the discussions when the Bill was being drafted, the ultimate control lies with the Presiding Officers. They may not want to exercise every responsibility in that area. There are differences-for instance, as to how the area will be protected. In general, the Parliament is protected almost exclusively by the Parliamentary Security Service. The executive wing, needing a more highly trained person, will be covered by the Australian Protective Service. In a general sense, the overall control will be with the Presiding Officers. They may want, in a memorandum of understanding, to cede certain administrative functions back to the Executive, on the grounds that that would make the executive wing easier to manage and to administer. But the ultimate power will still reside with the Presiding Officers. I am not necessarily sure that that was always the view when the Parliamentary Precincts Bill was first thought of. It was not always necessarily the view of the Executive that that was to be the case. But after some fairly protracted and complete negotiations, we have achieved that point. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.10) —The Minister referred to the fact that, ultimately, the powers will reside in the Presiding Officers. Everything he has said tends to confirm my worst fears that the ministerial wing will be required to be given over by the Presiding Officers to the Minister. He also referred to a memorandum of understanding. Is he able to table that and let us have a look at what is included in it? Originally I asked whether it would be something that was done by agreement from time to time, or whether it would be something that would be given over. Can the Minister give us an assurance, for example, that the proclamation will not be delayed pending an agreement between the Presiding Officers and the Minister? Can the Minister give us an assurance that the memorandum will be tabled and made available for debate prior to its being signed and finally put together? If the Presiding Officers are giving over powers to the Minister that is something that honourable senators in this chamber would take a great interest in and they are entitled to because the President belongs to this chamber not, I suggest, to the Minister or to the Executive. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.11) —I have already dealt with one or two of those points. I do not think Senator Reid could have been concentrating at the time when I said that, as I understand it, currently the memorandum is being formulated. Senator Reid —There must be a draft, you see. Senator ROBERT RAY —There may be a draft at this stage. As I understand it, that draft is being prepared by an officer of the Senate and then there will be a degree of consultation with the Executive. I think we are probably confusing two things here. Senator Reid asked whether powers were going to be handed over. I do not understand that to be the case. It is simply the way the executive wing is to be administered. What we are talking about in that memorandum of understanding are some fairly general principles. We will not spell everything out and it will not be precise. I was asked whether there was an intention to delay the proclamation. No, there is no such intention. Of course, not everything will be proclaimed at the same time because not everything is ready to be handed over at the same time. But there can be no question that the power to delay proclamation can be used by the Executive in any dealings or negotiations with the Presiding Officers. That is not the Government's intention and, as I am one of the relevant Ministers, I will be making sure that it does not occur in that form, even though it could be said that some potential for that may exist in the way the Act is framed. That is not the intention. It is simply to fit in with the construction timetable that various areas of the House could be handed over at different times. I refer Senator Reid to a letter-I will table a copy-written on 25 February 1988 by Senator Barney Cooney in his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills to the portfolio Minister, Stewart West, in which he raised the proclamation dates. I also have the response. I suppose that one of the crucial paragraphs in this correspondence is: You might also wish to inform the Committee by way of background that the Presiding Officers were consulted during all stages of the preparation of the Bill and the commencement provision was approved by them at the drafting stage. I table those documents as they may help to explain some of the points raised by the honourable senator. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Robert Ray) read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.15) —The Senate is about to commence debate on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987. It is simply a machinery Bill to ensure that the Patents Office acts with authority in meeting the requirements of the Safeguards Act without breaching the Patents Act. It has no wider implications than that. The Opposition parties support the Bill. However, I have had a look at the speakers list on this Bill which, as I have said, is purely a machinery Bill and it is clear that the maddies on the extreme left wing of the Australian Labor Party, namely the Australian Democrats and the people in the Nuclear Disarmament Party, will use this opportunity for some sort of debate in regard to nuclear fuel and nuclear weapons around the world. I was somewhat disappointed recently to have had a conversation with a young gentleman of my acquaintance in which he criticised the export of uranium ore to France. I questioned him to find out what he knew about the subject and it became clear to me that the maddies and their publicity are getting through to the youths of Australia and that the young people of Australia really do not understand what this is all about. I wonder whether it might be possible for people, such as those on our side of the Senate and indeed on the Government's side of the Senate, who support the use of nuclear fuel for the generation of power, to put their case more simply so that the young people of Australia could begin to understand that there are no problems about the export of yellowcake. Indeed, there are no problems about the export of enriched uranium for peaceful purposes. In the case of Australia, nuclear material is currently limited to that used for scientific and medical purposes. It is a very simple proposition and I hope that people can understand it. We also have the Australian Safeguards Office as a statutory authority to oversee the use of our product, whether it is in Australia or around the world. Let us then look at what can be done with uranium ore. Firstly, it has to be dug out of the ground, refined and brought down to a product which can be distinguished as uranium ore. That is all we do in Australia. It is a product which is commonly called yellowcake. We do not enrich it in Australia; we simply mine it and export to various countries-mainly to Canada-this stuff, using simple language, which is dug out of the ground. So all we really have is a product which is in the earth already. We clean it up by taking out the products which are not uranium and we export this material which is called yellowcake, but which is simply an ore. In no way is it dangerous. That ore could be used to produce nuclear weapons. Let me turn to that straight away. What the superpowers do with uranium-in other words, the United States of America, the Soviet Union, France and the United Kingdom-is go through what in simple terms may be called the plutonium route to produce a product called plutonium. That involves very complex engineering. It is a very expensive way of dealing with uranium, and probably only those four countries go through that route to produce a product which can be used for nuclear weapons. Let us look, then, at an alternative route to doing something with uranium ore-what is called the centrifuge route, running the uranium ore around some sort of centrifuge. In simple language, it is something like a washing machine, although, of course, it is much more complicated. With a simple centrifuge system, by running the ore around and around for a long period, the uranium can be gradually enriched so that it becomes purer and purer, until ultimately it is 3 per cent pure. That is what we call enriched uranium. Once the uranium is at that stage, it can then be used for the production of electricity-power to keep people warm, to light their homes, and to run all the machines that need to be run around the world. It is the cleanest, purest way of producing electricity. Senator Sanders —What about the leukaemia, the cancer? Senator LEWIS —If Senator Sanders, sitting there and making his inane comments, were to visit western Victoria and see the smoke which envelops areas of western Victoria as we generate electricity there from brown coal, he would see why those of us who say that nuclear energy is the cleanest system want to see the world adopt the nuclear system for the production of electricity. We do not produce enriched uranium in Australia. Senator MacGibbon —What a pity we don't. Senator LEWIS —Exactly. What a pity we do not. It would enable us to process our basic product and earn substantially more in export funds. For a country which is losing almost $1 billion per month on its trade, what a great tragedy it is that we are not exporting not just uranium ore but enriched uranium, enriched to 3 per cent. Let me explain why that would be also a safe thing to do. I hope that Senator Sanders and his maddie colleagues around the chamber will listen to the reason why I say that it would be a very safe thing. If the uranium is run around a centrifuge, one can keep purifying it until ultimately, after a very long period, one can reach a stage at which it is 90 per cent pure. Once that stage is reached, one has the ability to produce a very dirty nuclear bomb. That is a very simple proposition. We talk about producing uranium that is enriched to 3 per cent or enriched to 90 per cent. That is a big jump. It is a long and complicated process to enrich it to 3 per cent. I have not worked out the mathematics of how many multiples of 3 per cent one has to apply to reach 90 per cent, but it is a great many. If we allow some of the Third World countries to set up enriched uranium plants, they could generate a dirty bomb through their plants. So it would be far better for us to enrich the uranium in Australia and export it to countries which do not have an enrichment plant. It is a very simple proposition. We would then know that they were taking it in the condition in which we were supplying it. They would not have the enrichment plant to do anything with it, so we would be able to see clearly that the uranium remained in the condition in which we exported it. We would not have to worry about what those countries were doing. That is what Canada is doing. Most of the uranium we send to Canada as an ore is just dug out of the ground and cleaned up a bit, but not enriched. The Canadians make all the money by enriching it to 3 per cent and exporting it to those countries which wish to use it for the generation of electricity-not for use in nuclear weapons but for producing power to keep people warm, to keep their homes warm and to provide them with lighting. The simple fact is that there are nuclear power plants in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, East Germany, West Germany, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, the United States, the USSR, and Yugoslavia. Only five of those nations-Argentina, India, Pakistan, South Africa and Israel-do not allow safeguard inspection of all their nuclear facilities. Despite these exceptions, 98 per cent of all nuclear facilities and installations are inspected under the international safeguards agreement, and 124 nations are signatories to safeguards agreements. All the evidence supports the view that the safeguards system is working. Senator Sanders —Ha, ha! Really! Don't you read the newspapers? Senator LEWIS —We are not talking about enrichment plants. I am talking about nuclear power being used to generate electricity. The Government of the Northern Territory, sensibly, wants to have built in the Territory an enrichment plant that would enable Australia to export uranium enriched to 3 per cent for use in the generation of electricity. That would be a good thing. Much wealth would be generated as a result of that export. Are we to allow the Northern Territory to remain a mendicant Territory very substantially dependent upon Australian taxpayers because of the silliness of the present Labor Government in that it will not allow the Northern Territory to go ahead with such a plant? Are we to deprive Australia of the advantage of the opportunities that we have to export our product and to earn income because of the silliness of the Australian Labor Party, which will not support the building of an enrichment plant and, indeed, will not allow the export of our ore to France any longer? What absolute nonsense is this when we know that the safeguards system can be used to ensure that our ore is not used in connection with nuclear weapons. By far the vast majority of the people of Australia think along our lines. It is time that we got these few simple messages home to young Australians. We ought to make sure that the messages of these maddies-we shall hear them later this evening-are pushed aside and shown to be the nonsense that they are, so that the young people of Australia begin to understand that they are talking nonsense and that what we are talking about is the sensible route for the use of a material. It is far better that Australia uses and encourages the world to use nuclear power for the generation of electricity, rather than that we keep burning brown coal and other dirty coals and keep pouring smoke and all the rest into the atmosphere and destroying it. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(8.00) —The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill pertains to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act which was passed in February 1987 and which gave legislative effect to a number of Australia's obligations at an international level, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I have no reason to oppose this amendment but I feel that it is a good opportunity to remind the Government of its original position on the mining of uranium in Australia, particularly as the Australian Labor Party (ALP) is so concerned about getting back to some of its grassroots support following the recent rather devastating election results. A recent opinion poll conducted by the Sydney based international market research company, Frank Small and Associates, indicated that 41 per cent of Australians opposed the mining and export of Australian uranium, while only 39 per cent favour it. Apparently 18 per cent did not care. Given the current debate within the ALP on uranium sales to France, and the question of whether Australian uranium ends up in French nuclear weapons, it is worth taking notice of an article in the Age by Brad Collis on 20 February. Following allegations made in the West German magazine Der Spiegel that Australian uranium is being relabelled to allow some companies to bypass restrictions on its use, Mr Collis pointed out that it is technically impossible to determine whether Australian uranium is used in weapons grade material. The uranium processing pipeline in Europe begins with yellowcake supplied by various producers, including Australia. Once the uranium has entered the processing chain it is a raw material and its origin is indistinguishable. From yellowcake it becomes uranium hexafluoride gas and is later converted into a uranium oxide in the form of pellets which go into the reactor fuel rods. Any argument based on country of origin would be valid only if the origin of individual atoms in the processed material could be identified-but it cannot. So it is obvious why the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) cannot give any guarantee about where Australian uranium ends up; nor can the French Defence Minister give a similar guarantee. France imports uranium from several countries as well as mining its own, and the uranium is all mixed up together. This makes safeguards absolutely worthless. South Africa provides no safeguards as to its uranium; nor do Namibia and Niger. Canada provides some safeguards, and Australia provides strict safeguards, so we are told. However, all of the uranium ends up in the melting pot. Doubtless some of it ends up at Mururoa Atoll to be used in nuclear weapons testing. Officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have now admitted that the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), which is meant to be a watchdog agency in Europe, sanctioned the reflagging of a shipment of Australian uranium to enable it to be enriched to nuclear weapons grade, without Australia's knowledge and in contravention of Australia's non-proliferation policy. Apparently EURATOM provided advice to the West German company Nukem on how to avoid Australia's nuclear safeguards policy, and then misled the Australian Government into believing that the safeguards agreements were being adhered to. I am sure that Senator Sanders will provide a lot more detail about that particular scandal. Despite all the high and mighty posturing by the ALP, we now have the admission from on high that, as the Safe Energy Movement consistently has pointed out, all goes into one big melting pot. That is a quotation from a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade official last week. Safeguards are utterly and totally meaningless.They are a fraud. Now we await an admission by this Government that its safeguards mean precisely nothing and that there is no way in which the Government can say categorically that Australian uranium does not end up in nuclear weapons, particularly French nuclear weapons. When will the Government admit to the truth on the subject of the destination of Australian uranium? When will the Government stop lying to the Australian people? It will be interesting to see exactly what transpires at the Federal ALP Conference in Hobart in a couple of months time. The ALP promised three things to its members when in 1984 it changed from being an anti-uranium party to being a pro-uranium party. It promised, first, it would not sell uranium to France; second, Australian uranium would be used only for peaceful purposes; and third, that strict safeguards would apply to all uranium sales. All of those promises have been broken; they lie in tatters. It is no wonder that there is total disillusionment within the ALP throughout Australia, and outside the country as well. It is also important to note the continuing slowdown of the growth of the nuclear industry around the world, as well as the continuing opposition to that industry since the disastrous accident at Chernobyl. That opposition includes protests in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as well as in developing countries like India and Hong Kong. It recently came to my notice that some Soviet Union citizens actually halted the progress of a nuclear plant that was planned. That shows that although the Soviet Union Government's official policy is to keep up with its nuclear program, when citizens get busy and make their position well known on environmental issues they can reverse the decisions of their government, even in the Soviet Union. That happened recently with a planned project that has now been cancelled. A recent article in the Guardian in Britain reported on the growth during the past year of the Safe Energy Movement in Japan, one of the countries most devoted to nuclear power. The article said that when in October each year the Government organises a national nuclear power day, there is significant opposition to the growth of the nuclear industry in Japan. In Sweden, a country with 12 nuclear reactors, which depends on nuclear power for 50 per cent of its electricity, the Government is committed to closing down the first of its reactors by 1995, a second by 1996, and the remainder by 2010. The Swedish Government has chosen an alternative energy path because it realises that it is environmentally too dangerous to keep up with nuclear power generation. On 11 March the Italian Prime Minister resigned during a row over his decision to build a nuclear power station following a referendum last November when Italians voted against the construction of new nuclear power stations. In Britain, yet another country with a strong nuclear power program, Lord Marshall, Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB), conceded last October in a radio interview that Britain has not yet reaped any economic benefit from nuclear power. This is the first time that the CEGB has publicly admitted that nuclear power has never been cheap when compared to other forms of electricity generation. That admission comes on top of growing concern about the long term effects of the Windscale disaster 30 years ago and continuing unease about experiments at two other reactors in England and Wales, one of which was called off after protests. The issue of nuclear waste dumping in rural areas has also seen the remarkable spectacle of Conservative parliamentarians supporting angry constituents on this concern. That is quite an interesting about-turn for the acolytes of a woman totally committed to a nuclear future for Great Britain. Even in India there is a growing popular movement against the irrelevance of India's ambitious indigenous nuclear power program. India has seven operating nuclear power plants and a fast breeder test reactor as well as small reprocessing plants. There has been a history of accidents at the two Tarapur plants near Bombay, causing a great deal of prominent critics including Praful Bidwai of the Times of India and Professor Dhirendra Sharma of the Committee For A Sane Nuclear Policy. Grassroots safe energy movements have sprung up to oppose nuclear power station construction in Gujarat, Kerala and Karnataka, despite government arrogance and hostility. To top it all, the Indian Government is now lumbered with the task of dismantling the Rajasthan nuclear plant, Raps 1, which has been leaking since 1981. This reactor was a Candu prototype reactor built in 1973, that is a Canadian model, not an Indian one, although since then India has tried to design its own reactors. In Hong Kong there is growing concern about a nuclear power plant being constructed on the Chinese side of the border as a joint project between the two governments. It is also noteworthy that in Malaysia during the recent arrest of more than 100 people by the Government last year, several were from Friends of the Earth and the group protesting at the dumping of radioactive waste by the Japanese Asian Rare Earth Company at Papan. So we now have the spectacle of increasing opposition to nuclear power not only in the industrialised countries of the West including Japan, but also the socialist bloc countries and the developing countries. At the same time, the number of nuclear power plants planned for the future is declining, according to the United States Atomic Industrial Forum. There have been no new orders for nuclear power plants in the US for over 10 years, although the number in operation grew from 272 in 1985 to 285 in 1986. A number of proposed plants have been cancelled and others are being shut down. Only this month the US Department of Energy announced that it would not restart its nuclear reactor at Hanford, the nuclear reservation in the State of Washington which has produced plutonium for nuclear weapons for 25 years. This reactor, similar to the Soviet Union's Chernobyl reactor, was closed in December 1986 for a $100m safety upgrade after over 1,200 fuel ruptures in its long history. Many of these ruptures resulted in direct and constant contamination of the nearby Columbia River which flows into the Pacific Ocean, aptly labelled the world's nuclear dustbin. Obviously it is becoming too expensive for power generating companies to comply with the more stringent safeguards being applied in the US. The New York Times of 11 March carried a fascinating front page story about the decision of the Department of Energy to sharply scale back the amount of radioactive material it plans to bury in its first permanent nuclear waste repository in salt beds in Mexico. This decision followed a warning by scientists that enough water was seeping into the repository to threaten its ability to safely store waste that would remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. What concerns me is that countries such as the US and Japan will be looking for options such as burial of waste at sea or on Pacific islands, or even taking up some of the more crass proposals to bury it in Australia and make a few bucks in the process. Despite the denials of the Australian Government that Australia would be taking the waste from weapons discarded by the superpowers under the terms of the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) agreement signed in December last year, we should be wary of suggestions that Australia could set up a lucrative billion dollar industry for nuclear waste disposal. This was alluded to just before the meal break by Senator Lewis. By all means let us develop the synroc proposal for waste disposal, if that is the best offer yet for disposing of the world's nuclear waste. How it can be proved safe for the next 24,000 years is another question. Two other points need to be made about synroc, apart from the fact that it cannot be adequately tested, and has not been adequately tested. The first is that if the technology is useful let us export it. Let us set up the waste disposal plants where the waste is already stockpiled. The waste is dangerous to transport and we do not want it here polluting our environment. Secondly, we should not see the development of synroc-as I said, as yet untried and untested-as a licence or excuse to perpetuate the nuclear industry. We need to get rid of the accumulated waste and stop producing more of it. I must allude also to the ridiculous proposal already mentioned by the Northern Territory Government that it has a suitable waste disposal site for nuclear toxic waste disposal near Tennant Creek. However, no sooner had the site been designated than there was an earthquake-one of the severest earthquakes recorded in Australian history yet at that very site at Tennant Creek; so much for a geologically stable area. Something else about which I think people need to be aware is the ridiculous proposal put forward by Graeme Campbell, regrettably a member of the Australian Labor Party, who said that in his electorate of Kalgoorlie suitable sites would be available also for the dumping of toxic wastes, including radioactive waste. I would like to return to some of the international evidence. The number of new reactors outside the United States dropped to 165 in 1986 compared to 178 in 1985, according to the Atomic Industrial Forum spokesman, Don Winston. He cited Mexico and Venezuela as being among those countries that had changed their minds about new plants. He added Turkey as another doubtful country. Prospects for new plants in West Germany are uncertain and there is continuing opposition to plans to bury nuclear waste there. Even France will be scaling down to one new plant a year after opening four plants in 1987. France is cutting back because it is fast approaching the point at which it cannot use more nuclear power for political reasons. In fact, that country actually has a surplus of electricity which it is trying to sell off to its neighbours. What we are probably seeing is the number of new plants declining to about five a year. Around the year 2000 a lot of existing plants will be going out of commission. We will then face a political battle over disposing of these reactors as well as the accumulating waste. At the same time the economic factor will make nuclear power less and less viable. Nuclear power is particularly irrelevant for Third World countries, few of which have a grid large enough to take the output from a nuclear reactor and where small-scale, local electricity generation would be far more efficient. When we consider that a nuclear reactor can now cost over $US1 billion we realise that any developing country buying one from the industrialised countries will face a massive increase in its interest payments. The Philippines has now discovered this after deciding to pay the bill but not to open the Bataan reactor that was built by the Westinghouse company during the Marcos years. What a great rip-off that was. How environmentally unsound it was to build that reactor on an earthquake fault line. The Aquino Government has seen the wisdom of not opening that reactor but it is still left with the bill-it still has to pay the debt to Westinghouse. It is this assessment which makes economic sense for the Australian Government to maintain its three-mines uranium policy or, perhaps, even a two-mines policy. If we opened up all the other uranium mines we would only depress the world market even further. There is a glut of uranium on the world market at the moment because of decreasing demand. The same logic applies to Canada which has large reserves of uranium and which will dominate the United States market in years ahead alongside United States domestic production, to the exclusion of Australian imports of uranium. It was never a question of morality, but just of sound economic sense. Of course, I think that the moral argument should be relevant as well but at least we can appeal to some people on economic grounds if we cannot appeal to their moral sensibilities or their environmental concern for future generations. An interesting article in the Melbourne Age of 11 March by Peter Kellner about a study by Dr J. Gould of the New Jersey Medical School indicated that Chernobyl may have been responsible for the 40,000 extra deaths which occurred between May and August 1986 in the United States. The hypothesis is that radioactivity, even at low, so-called safe levels, generates ionised particles inside the body. These particles are called free radicals and do not have an electrical charge. They are attracted to blood cells that contain an electrical charge. On impact those blood cells are destroyed. Our body's immune system depends on the survival of these cells. Dr Gould and his colleagues are suggesting that Chernobyl's fallout aided the grim reaper by weakening the immune systems of nearly 40,000 more Americans than would normally have died in the given period. The arguments for and against nuclear power are familiar enough after years of debate but the real issue is a political one, the politics of energy. It is for this reason that I refer to a paper by Amory Lovins published in 1976 in the American Foreign Affairs Quarterly Review. The paper was entitled Energy strategy: The road not taken? In this paper the author, a consultant physicist, presents a choice. It is most important for us to remember that we do have choices about future directions in energy generation. The first path relies on the rapid expansion of centralised high technologies to increase supplies of energy, especially in the form of electricity. The second path represents a serious commitment to efficient use of energy, rapid development of renewable energy resources, matched in scale and energy quality to end-use needs, and special transitional fossil fuel technologies. The two paths are mutually exclusive, with the second path representing a long term goal and a shift in direction but offering many social, economic and geopolitical advantages, including the virtual elimination of nuclear proliferation from the world. I think that it is worth stressing this last point as we are coming up to the next conference of the countries that belong to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1990, when it is quite possible that it will finally break down. Although we have been spared the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons that many of us feared, there are still many nations on the threshold of producing nuclear weapons and, I am quite sure, quite a number that have them unofficially. There are still a number of threshold countries such as Pakistan, Brazil, South Korea perhaps and, of course, Israel and South Africa which already have nuclear weapons. Therefore, we need to be very concerned about possible proliferation. Of course, the link between nuclear power generation and the nuclear weapons industries is absolutely irrefutable. With 41 countries now developing a nuclear power program obviously this number could increase. Nuclear weapons technology is not complicated. When countries resort to smuggling or stealing the necessary components, as Israel and Pakistan have done in the past, the dangers grow. To those who say that nuclear power is safe, I simply ask them to remember the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons as well as the 10- to 30-year period it takes for the cancers to show up after accidents occur. Any increase in radiation is dangerous and we do not know much about the subject, even after 40 years of dealing with nuclear technology. The answers have not been found as to what to do with the waste and no answers have been found as to how to eradicate the cancers which accidents in the nuclear industry cause. Australia could be a world leader in safe energy if we are prepared to make the choice presented to us by Amory Lovins, both domestically and with regard to the whole question of the mining and export of uranium. A substantial way in which the Australian Labor Party (ALP) could restore some of its lost faith with its traditional supporters is to return to its earlier total opposition to uranium mining. This will certainly be one of the crucial debates at the forthcoming national conference. Unfortunately, there is pressure from my home State for the ALP to continue its electorally disastrous pro-uranium policies. The Western Australian Minister for Minerals and Energy is pushing for a substitution-type three-mines policy-that is, for a new uranium mine to be opened up in Western Australia to replace the Northern Territory Nabarlek mine which has virtually ceased production. So the illogical three-mines, phase-out policy will be further weakened if David Parker has his way with Rudall River opening up in Western Australia. So far Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd has carried out extensive exploratory tests in the region, so the stage is set for licence approval to be given. The project has been described by critics as a triple-headed monster. Uranium mining on Aboriginal land and in a national park is an electoral disaster package, I would think, to which can be added the uncertain state of the nuclear industry worldwide. Surely sense will prevail and delegates to the national conference will knock back the David Parker plan if it is actually put up in that form. It would mean a great deal to traditional Labor Party supporters-and I used to be one of them-to see the Labor Party return to an honourable position on the uranium issue. The only safe place for uranium is in the ground. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.22) —I will come to the substance, if one could euphemistically call it that, of Senator Vallentine's speech later. I note, with sadness, that, after being a member of the Senate for four years, Senator Vallentine still has to read her speech. I would have thought that she would have enough pride to know it by heart now. She has just made the same speech. When she used the phrase `a triple-headed monster', I thought, `Goodness me, I've heard that on many occasions'. Maybe it is the same person or group outside the Parliament who writes her speeches who has a one-track mind. Enough of that; let us turn to the business at hand. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987-- Senator Vallentine —You are not reading, are you, Senator? Senator MacGIBBON —I have read two speeches in this chamber. The first was my maiden speech and the other was a speech on a very important matter where I had to be particularly precise in what I said. On no other occasion have I read speeches. I obey Standing Orders. The Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 18 September 1987. The Opposition supports it. The purpose of the Bill is to overcome some conflicts between the earlier Bill we passed and the Patents Act 1952. It establishes procedures for handling patent applications which relate to nuclear technology and it ensures compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987, which was important legislation. The safeguards Act, as it is known-Senator Vallentine and the extremists probably do not recall it; certainly they did not understand it-gave legislative effect to Australia's obligation under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. It also established a permit system for the possession and transport of nuclear material and created the Australian Safeguards Office to oversee the system. The Bill before us resolves the conflicts between the Patents Act and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act. It makes minor amendments to the Patents Act 1952 to ensure that the Patents Office is able to comply with the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act, without being in breach of the Patents Act in relation to associated technology which is defined as `a document containing information that is primarily applicable to enrichment of nuclear material, reprocessing of irradiated nuclear material, production of heavy water or nuclear weapons, or nuclear information that is covered by an international agreement', is declared as such by the Minister and `is not possessed or communicated without the relevant permit or authority of the Safeguards Office'. The Bill enables the Commissioner of Patents to refer a specification which appears to contain this kind of information to the Director of Safeguards and for the Safeguards Office to check whether the necessary permit and authority to possess and communicate the information has been given. Currently, the officers of the Patents Office, in refusing access to associated technology, could be held to be in breach of the Patents Act. The purpose of this Bill overcomes that anomaly. There are other minor amendments which relate to matters, such as the lapse of patent application, its restoration and confidentiality. As I have said, we support the Bill. One of the fundamental things that are associated with the whole spirit and content of the Bill is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That is a very important treaty which Senator Vallentine spent a considerable amount of time abusing. She said repeatedly that safeguards were absolutely worthless and useless. I happen to think, as do most people in this Parliament-not only in the Senate-that the treaty is one of the great achievements of multilateral diplomacy in the postwar world. Certainly, it has its imperfections. It needs constant vigilance and surveillance. It certainly needs improving, but the world today would be a far more dangerous place, and the nuclear world would be far more unpredictable, but for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is all very well for people such as Senator Vallentine and Senator Sanders to rail against the treaty, but they do not come up with any alternative proposition-not a thing. They just want to forget, somehow or other, that nuclear weapons and nuclear powerhouses exist and that the whole vast field of nuclear physics has not been discovered. They want to run away from it in some way and hide under the bed. I am afraid we do not have that option. We have to cope with those difficulties, however severe they may be. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a very constructive move that most of the nations of the world have agreed to. The obligation on us is not to ridicule it, but to take a constructive and creative position, improve and support that treaty. Absolutely no credit can ever be given for what the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has done. For the benefit of the Senate, I wish to quote, in precise form, what the six articles provide. Article I provides that nuclear weapon states undertake not to transfer nuclear weapons to the control of another country or to assist a non-nuclear weapon state to acquire them. Article II states that non-nuclear weapon states undertake not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. Article III states: Non-nuclear weapon States agree to accept IAEA safeguards on all nuclear activities in their territories for the purpose of verifying the terms of Article II. Each member country to require IAEA safeguards on exports of nuclear items to non-nuclear weapon States which are not a party to the NPT. Article IV affirms the rights of all countries to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and requires countries in a position to do so to contribute to the development of nuclear energy in member countries. Article V requires each party to undertake to ensure that potential benefits from peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made to non-nuclear weapon member states on a non-discriminatory basis and the charge will be as low as possible and exclude research costs. Article VI states that all parties to the treaty undertake to work for a cessation of the nuclear arms race, for nuclear disarmament and ultimately for general and complete disarmament. Currently, 122 countries are signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Some significant countries are not members. The obligation on us is to encourage all the other countries to join in. The countries that are not signatory to the Treaty which cause concern are France, South Africa, Israel, India, Pakistan and the Argentine. But over three-quarters of the memberships of the United Nations are members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Some of the criticisms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty stem from the non-nuclear weapons states which claim that, while they observe their responsibilities under the Treaty, the nuclear weapons states, namely the two super-powers-the Soviet Union and the United States of America-have failed to stop the competition in nuclear weapons. Perhaps the recent intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty and the foreshadowed 50 per cent reduction in strategic nuclear weapons will be a significant reversal of the policy that we have seen up to the present and the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will be observed by the two superpowers. But, with all its faults, the Treaty has been of enormous benefit to mankind. Certainly the Opposition-and I am quite sure the Government also-supports the Treaty and wants to see it developed and strengthened. The other relevant point to this legislation is the report commissioned by the Australian Labor Party and presented in May 1984-the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) report-the so-called Slatyer report. ASTEC was required to look into Australia's role in the nuclear cycle. After an exhaustive examination, it came down with a report which found that Australia should be very significantly involved in the whole of the nuclear cycle. I will quote from a part of the report. ASTEC said that by being involved in the cycle, Australia would be: able to make a direct contribution to the development of the civil nuclear fuel cycle in ways that will increase global energy security, help to strengthen the elements of the non-proliferation regime and help to reduce the risks of the misuse of civil facilities and the diversion of nuclear materials from civil to military uses. The report considered that without such involvement: global energy security would be less assured and our ability to strengthen the non-proliferation regime and to influence future developments in the fuel cycle would be reduced. The report further said: We do not wish to exaggerate Australia's role in matters related to the nuclear fuel cycle but, as in most other human endeavours, it is only by active involvement that Australia can expect to be able to influence the future course of events. The report recommended that Australia should actively encourage `the concept that sensitive facilities, particularly in enrichment and reprocessing plants, should be located in as few countries as possible'. That is a very important point. It gives substance to the arguments advanced by Senator Lewis earlier tonight that we should certainly be exploring the possibility of setting up in this country a nuclear enrichment plant and that we should certainly be looking at the processing of nuclear wastes to find out whether it is feasible and practicable for us to do it. The report went on to say: Australian participation in stages of the nuclear fuel cycle should be permitted, where such participation promoted and strengthens the Non-Proliferation regime. I think it is very sad that we do not have a nuclear industry in Australia. We really have no practical involvement in nuclear engineering and, as such, we are denied a whole field of what is very important technology. It is a matter of regret that Lucas Heights has not been expanded and modernised. Above all, I think it is a tragedy that the proposal in the early 1970s to go ahead with a nuclear powerhouse as a training facility at Jervis Bay was abandoned by the governments of the day. We have no practical nuclear engineering capability or experience in this country. As a consequence, our scientific pool of knowledge is diminished in a very important field. It means that commercial sales in the nuclear engineering field are denied Australia because we have no production facilities. This deficiency impacts upon us even in areas such as defence. I am sure that one of the contributing factors which led to the Royal Australian Navy not considering the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines as opposed to nuclear-armed submarines, which were never under consideration, was the fact that it felt that we could not go ahead with such a purchase without a nuclear engineering base in this country. So we are now committed to one of the most expensive projects ever in this country, a project which will probably cost us over $6 billion for a collection of six quite antique diesel-electric powered submarines by the end of the 1990s. This will happen in part because we do not have the support facilities for nuclear powered submarines. The Luddites, of course, rejoice in this. They think it is good that coalminers can die in their hundreds and thousands hewing coal in underground mines. They carry on about environmental issues. But they do not worry about the carcinogens that are pouring into the air, the lung cancer cases who are dying every day from epithelial carcinomas. They do not worry about the smog in the air, the pollution of the fabrics, the death of the forests and all the rest of it. They do not worry about the bare hillsides in India and Africa where people chop down every tree for firewood. I am reminded of a talk I had a couple of years ago with some friends whose life-long wish was to see the Taj Mahal in India in the moonlight. So they planned a trip to India. But when they went to the Taj Mahal on a moonlit night, they could not see it for the smog which was caused by the burning cowdung fires of the Indians living around it. Very severe environmental problems arise from persisting with thermal generation of power using fossil fuels which are so beloved by the Australian Democrats and the nuclear disarmers. We saw the absolute intellectual vapidity of Senator Vallentine when she said in her speech that the answer to our energy problems is small-scale electrical generating facilities. What are those small-scale electrical generating facilities going to burn? Are they going to burn liquid hydrocarbons like oil, or are they going to burn solid coal? Does the Australian Democrats' approach of banning nuclear power as a clean and environmentally safe source of electricity mean that they want everyone in the world to be running around barefoot and pregnant, as serfs and slaves? It is all very well for them to want that, but the selfishness of these people is striking. So long as they are warm at night, well-dressed, living in houses in which the roofs do not leak, are well fed and all the rest of it, they do not care at all about the rest of the world. They are not concerned about the problems of the Third World countries. They are not concerned about countries that do not have natural resources that can be burnt up. That is beyond their pale and certainly beyond their conscience. But that cannot be the view that the world takes. The world needs energy. It needs energy to feed and clothe its people and to produce the goods that a modern society requires. We simply just cannot proceed down the path of burning up fossil fuels and turning this whole globe into a massive garbage heap. At present nuclear energy has a most important place in the quest for alternative energy sources. It has a minor place but a most important place-a place for which there is no substitute at present. The case of the opponents of this Bill rests on two assertions. The first is that somehow or other Australia has a monopoly on the supply of uranium. The second assertion implicit in all of this is that somehow or other what Australia is doing is creating huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons around the world. I would like to deal with the first proposition that Australia has a monopoly on uranium. Nothing could be further from the truth. But we do have very considerable supplies of low-cost uranium. We should be using those for the benefit of mankind, not sitting on them and denying them to world markets. In fact, we are probably obliged to supply countries which have safeguards under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In the extreme case if a country wants uranium, as Japan and Britain demonstrated in the early 1960s, it can extract it from sea water. Uranium deposits exist in most countries. My argument is that Australia should sell as much uranium as it can in order to have an influence on the use of uranium throughout the world and for the benefit of the Australian economy. It is estimated that we have uranium reserves of 530,000 tonnes-those are the 1985 figures-representing 28 per cent of the known Western world's low cost uranium which is defined as uranium costing less than $30 per pound. But we do not have a monopoly on that. Although we have 28 per cent, Canada has 17 per cent, South Africa has 11 per cent, Brazil has 10 per cent, Nigeria has 9 per cent, the United States of America has 8 per cent and Namibia has 7 per cent. This Government's embargo on uranium mining restricts production to three mines. Somehow or other we get good uranium from those three mines, but we cannot develop any further mines because that is bad uranium. One day the Australian Labor Party will overcome its schizophrenia on this point and realise that all uranium is the same and that Australia should be competing for as much of the market share as it can get. In 1985 Australian uranium exports totalled 3,500 tonnes worth $400m to the economy. That represented 10 per cent of the fuel for the world's 350 operating nuclear power stations. But in comparison, Canada produced more than 11,000 tonnes-more than three times the uranium we produced-and supplied 31 per cent of fuel to the world's nuclear power stations. I am not one of those who believe that there is a great and expanding market for uranium in the years ahead. I simply do not have enough information to make an accurate market projection of what might exist in the 1990s and I tend to discount the figures that come up from time to time which talk about a doubling or a trebling of the world market for uranium. Rather, my argument would be that irrespective of what the market is in total terms, Australia should be looking to double or treble its share of the trade. With the easily extractable uranium and low costs involved in Australia-particularly with the deposits in the Northern Territory-we should be seeking a far greater share of the existing world markets than we have at present. As well as getting a larger share of the markets, I believe that we must be in the enrichment of uranium as a fuel source for nuclear power generation. Senator Lewis dealt with this point quite well in his speech earlier tonight. But there is a world of difference between enrichment to 3 per cent for a nuclear fuel and the enrichment to 90 per cent of weapons grade material. Although the distinction between the two is enormous in simple terms-between 3 per cent and 90 per cent-it is quite blurred by the opponents of the nuclear industry. We export yellowcake, which is uranium 238 which has with it about 0.7 per cent of uranium 235, a fissile material. The enrichment which takes place enriches the uranium-the 0.7 per cent uranium 235-to a 3 per cent uranium 235 fraction as a fuel for nuclear power houses. That is done either by a gaseous diffusion process or an ultra centrifuge technique. That is done in only a few countries because of the really huge capital costs involved in setting up the plant. The gaseous diffusion technique, which was developed during the Second World War, provided the first material for the early atom bombs. The ultra centrifuge technique was developed later, but both techniques are characterised by massive capital involvement in plant. The techniques require big plant, are horrendously expensive and have huge energy demands. The electrical energy required to run one of those plants would probably be equivalent to that of a moderately sized city. It is a very big business to get into. I would not suggest that Australia go ahead with this technology, although there is a proposal to set up a plant in the Northern Territory. It seems to me that this plant will be a development of one of those two existing technologies. I doubt that it is an economic proposition for us, in Australia, to go down that path. Furthermore, if the capital could be raised the construction time would be about 10 or 15 years which I think is too long. The existing techniques of gaseous diffusion and ultra centrifuge are now reaching the end of their economic lives and the uranium industry around the world is looking to new technology. There is the possibility of new technology at hand through laser enrichment. This has already been successfully done at Lawrence Livermore and other research units in the United States of America. This could have very great benefits to us because the unit size that one can start with is a magnitude less than the old techniques and the capital cost in building similarly is a magnitude less-probably one hundredth less-than the old techniques. More importantly, the electrical energy demands to run the plants are very much less. They are moderate and, from that point of view, comparable to running an ordinary factory. The opportunity for Australia is very real. We should grasp this in our hands; see if we can make this technology work and go down the path of uranium enrichment for two very good reasons. First of all, the Australian Science and Technology Council report made a point about having enrichment facilities in few hands and in stable political countries. This is a very real need to control the enrichment process. Secondly, the value added aspect of putting yellowcake through to the fuel stage-the 3 per cent enriched stage-is very real. Instead of earning $450m or $500m from the sale of yellowcake, if we were selling fuel for a nuclear power house we would probably be earning $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion with very little expenditure on it if this laser technique worked. Given our huge balance of payments problem at present-we are going broke at an enormous rate-we are simply not in a position to neglect any opportunity to earn income, particularly the sizeable amounts of income that the opportunity of uranium enrichment provides. But more important than the money is the fact that this would give us a very influential position in the nuclear fuel cycle. It does not matter what the Luddites say, the nuclear fuel cycle will not go away. We have to cope with the difficulties involved. We have to have the intellectual resources and the character to stand up to those problems and dominate them, not be dominated by them. In conclusion, I return to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill. I believe that it aids the nuclear industry in Australia although the nuclear industry in Australia requires far wider support than this Bill provides and, indeed, than the Government has the intention of providing. The nuclear industry is undoubtedly a matter of the greatest importance for the human race. It requires an enormous amount of effort and concentration to control and to make sure that things do not go wrong. I argue very strongly that we cannot opt out in the way that the Australian Democrats and the nuclear disarmers want. I do not know how one can unlearn nuclear physics. I suppose if one has a mind like some of them, nothing ever goes in, but the store of knowledge in the human race simply cannot be dispensed with. We have to cope with this problem. The legislative steps in individual parliaments in some of the countries around the world and agreements such as the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons are a very significant starting point. Rather than trying to undo what cannot be undone, we would all be very much better off if we tackled the problems square on and constructively tried to make them work. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(8.50) —Obviously I have to support the Nuclear Non-proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill but I really do not believe it provides any guarantees of safeguards. In reality, we are only closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Australia has signed a string of safeguards agreements with those countries that buy our uranium. They are intended to operate in conjunction with the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). But safeguards are just a comfortable illusion, because Australian safeguards are supposed to prevent a customer country from reselling Australian uranium to a third country which is not a non-proliferation treaty signatory. These safeguards have not prevented France, the United States of America or Germany from importing Australian uranium so that it effectively replaces the uranium they export to non-signatory countries or, in the case of France, the uranium it uses in its own weapons program. NPT safeguards apply only to nuclear weapons. They cannot guarantee, for example, that Australian uranium, once sold to another country, will not be resold as fuel for nuclear powered ships and submarines which may also carry nuclear weapons. The additional Australian safeguards which have been instigated provide only an illusion of security and are no more effective than the non-proliferation treaty itself. Basically, the Government knows it cannot monitor the safeguards it seeks to impose. If it wishes to attract buyers for its exports-and this is the key-it is not in a position to impose too many demands. Most of the problems surrounding the monitoring of the world's nuclear materials trade rest with the IAEA. Its charter is both to monitor and to control as well as to promote the nuclear industry. That is an obvious conflict of interests. How can one monitor and control if one is also promoting the industry? For example, when a ship carrying 200 tonnes of uranium disappeared during transit only to turn up, later in Israel, it took 15 years, until 1983, for the public to find out because Euratom kept the documents classified. The IAEA attempts to monitor declared inputs and outputs of nuclear plants from which it calculates amounts of nuclear material unaccounted for. These amounts are often so small that they are either missed through measurement or error, or simply not looked for. According to the Ranger inquiry the IAEA would be unlikely to look for a diversion if a discrepancy was less than 0.5 per cent. The IAEA inspects plants very infrequently-only a few times a year-and this leaves ample time for covert activity. Not only that, but it gives warning when it is coming. It calls `Cooee, we are on our way'. What sort of safeguard is that? What sort of inspection is that? In 1978 the United States General Accounting Office found excessive discrepancies in inventories of enriched uranium and plutonium at three United States plants. In 1979, nine kilograms of enriched uranium were lost to a plant run by Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. in Erwin, Tennessee. In 1980 the General Accounting Office revealed that between 1955 and 1978 Dupont's Savannah River plutonium plant lost 145.5 kilograms of plutonium-enough to manufacture 20 nuclear weapons. Despite the sorry history of monitoring discrepancies, the Government continues to assure us that international safeguards are effective. In January this year, the day after the German allegations that in 1985 and 1986 the IAEA lost fissile material sufficient to make 250 nuclear bombs, our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in an effort to defuse public concern over new contracts to France, publicly stated his confidence in the IAEA's ability effectively to monitor nuclear transactions. The nuclear fuel cycle, by its very nature, proliferates more nuclear fuel and more nuclear waste. Each year it creates more fissionable material which the safeguard systems cannot adequately control and which technology cannot dispose of. Controlling this industry presents similar problems to that of controlling the illegal drug trade. It takes only six kilograms of plutonium to build a bomb. In recent weeks there has been much debate in this chamber about revelations by Der Spiegel about allegations by members of the European Parliament of label swaps of unenrichable American uranium with Australian origin uranium so that Australian uranium could be enriched to weapons grade in contravention of Australian safeguards agreements with Euratom. The allegations suggest that the exchange was not merely flag swapping but involved different consignments-different in levels of enrichment and chemical composition. We have received ministerial assurances that no illegality has occurred, but on what basis? It was on the say-so of the alleged conspirators. When asked by a reporter on 15 March how the Australian Safeguards Office could be sure that Australian uranium had not been enriched to weapons grade, the Director of Safeguards, Frank Bett, stated that those allegedly involved-that is, Euratom, Nukem and others-had given that advice. They were asked, `Did you do anything illegal?' and they said, `Oh, no' and that is enough for Frank Bett and the Australian Safeguards Office. What sort of an investigation is that, where one asks people suspected of a crime, `Did you commit the crime?'; they say, `No, we did not' and they are taken at their word. It seems that safeguards agreements amount to no more than a matter of trust. In the uranium industry we need a great deal more than that. Apparently satisfied with the safeguards system, the economic rationalists of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Opposition are currently arguing that Australia can go a long way towards solving its balance of payments problems by expanding uranium beyond the three mines policy. This argument was used to justify massive violations of ALP policy both in August 1986, in allowing Queensland Mines Ltd to export Nabarlek uranium to France, and the recent decision to allow Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA) to conclude a contract of undisclosed size at an undisclosed price with the French Government owned Cogema firm. The Australian public still has not been informed of the price for which ERA and the Australian Government sold out ALP policy. In selling to France the Australian Government gives tacit support to the expansion of the French nuclear arsenal, which is amongst the greatest threat to prospects for nuclear disarmament. Our safeguards arrangements with France are meaningless since Australian uranium is mixed with that from other countries and becomes untraceable-merely a bookkeeping exercise. When is Australian uranium not Australian uranium? When it has a French Flag, a United States flag or some other flag on it. When is nuclear waste and tailings Australian uranium? When the American flag is taken off it and an Australian flag is put on. If one wants to take the economic rationalists' argument as to why we should export uranium, why do we not export heroin? Senator Parer —Oh, come on! Senator WOOD —Why not? If one wants an economic rationalist argument, it would be a very profitable exercise. Tasmania grows opium poppies for use in medical drugs-codeine and other things. Why not expand that primary resource and export heroin around the world? There is a great demand for babies in the United States. Why not export babies? The simple argument is that it is an ethical not an economic question. In my view, the question of whether we should export uranium has nothing to do with economic rationalism, but more with the ethics of what we are creating. Our exports go to France and the French civilian and military fuel chains are inseparable. This is the whole point of nuclear energy and it is the whole point about the ethical argument. One cannot divorce nuclear power generation from nuclear weapons production. As I have said, the French civilian and military fuel chains are inseparable. Between 16 and 20 of them have dual functions. At least one of these, the Tricastin enrichment plant, has processed Australian uranium. Tricastin pre-enriches uranium before it reaches the Pierrelatte plant of enrichment to weapons grade. Senator Gareth Evans wrongly denied the involvement of Australian uranium when he stated in 1986 that Tricastin was entirely a civil plant. He was wrong. Sir John Hill, a former chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Commission, roundly denounced the notion of a civil atom versus a military atom. One cannot divorce nuclear power generation from nuclear weapons production. If one wants to look further at our client, France, France supplied the reactor, the reprocessing plant and the weapons design information with which Israel has built up to 200 nuclear weapons. We might remember that today Mordecai Vanunu was found guilty of treason for doing the world a service and informing us of the nuclearisation of Israel. France has pledged to build a 900-megawatt power reactor for Pakistan, when no other country would. France assisted South Africa to build an enrichment plant. It is helping to supply related technology to Iraq, Iran, South Korea and China. India, Pakistan and Israel all refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I am sure that Senator Sanders will have more to say on France, the nuclear renegade. France is actively assisting proliferation, which today occurs primarily via civilian nuclear industries. A former Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Fred Ilke, said: Today the speed of nuclear weapons capability is riding on the wave of peaceful uses of the atom . . . now it is peaceful technology that provides not only the means, but also the cover, in all cases where we fear that a new nuclear weapons program might be on the way. Subtle diversions of nuclear materials can come from Australian uranium initially provided for nuclear power. There is increasing evidence that the existing nuclear armed countries either have or are using their stockpiles of waste from commercial nuclear reactors as the basis for weapons construction. French analysts have suggested that there will in future be a shortfall in the plutonium needed for presently planned new missiles and for the construction of miniaturised and neutron bombs. It is likely that the plutonium which will be bred in the new commercial Superphenix prototype fast-breeder reactor, which produces plutonium-239 and uranium-238, will be used in the French weapons program. The 1982 report of the French Government's supervising council on nuclear safety refers explicitly to the: possibility with the fast breeders of producing important quantities of plutonium of excellent military quality. According to a Dutch energy analyst from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 1985, Australia has agreed to an arrangement with the French which allows the Superphenix to be used for military purposes, even if it contains fuel of Australian origin. This is in violation of our safeguards agreements and makes a mockery of the system. It is also useful to note that 160 tonnes of Australian-origin uranium tailings are currently stored in France and may be used as breeder elements for the Superphenix. We have heard a little about the world demand for uranium and uranium exports. We might examine world demand. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Atomic Energy Agency predict a global shortage of uranium by the end of the century. Though I do not agree with this assessment of the figures, many who advocate the expansion of our uranium industry do. Assuming for the moment that they are correct in their belief, an Australian decision to ban uranium exports would therefore be effective in influencing French nuclear policy. A more accurate assessment of world demand is that argued by the recent Friends of the Earth (FOE) Greenpeace report and that of Chas Collison and the honourable member for La Trobe, Peter Milton. Not only is the demand for uranium declining, but in the wake of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island public opposition to the nuclear industry is growing. More than half the French population is opposed to the construction of new nuclear plants, the Swedish Government is phasing out its nuclear power program, and the Italians are putting a brake on theirs. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) has abandoned the construction of a nuclear power plant near Krasnodar and West Germany has cancelled orders for four reactors. In addition, moves towards protectionist legislation in the United States may well eliminate the United States as a market for foreign uranium as American producers seek to ensure their own survival. I think that the wheat farmers can identify with that. The Chief Executive of ERA, Peter Bradfield, admitted in October 1987 that export sales are increasingly difficult to obtain. France has 30,000 tonnes of uranium stockpiled and is certainly not in need of Australian uranium for civil purposes. This was confirmed most arrogantly by the French Defence Minister, Monsieur Giraud, on his recent visit to Australia. As indicated by the FOE Greenpeace report the Minister's statement of August 1987, suggesting that Australia could potentially supply 25 per cent of French uranium needs, clearly is a vast overstatement. In a shrinking world market Australia would, in order to compete with Canada, have either to lower its floor price or compromise its safeguards policies still further-it has already done that. Floor prices are not of great concern to the Opposition. In fact, the Opposition's uranium policy involves phasing out floor price controls. This would have the effect of creating an even less responsible, indeed less safe, world uranium market. There are a number of suppliers of unsafeguarded uranium around the world-Third World countries such as South Africa, Namibia and Niger. Their major customers are West Germany, Britain, France, Japan, Spain, Italy and Taiwan. If Australia were to sell to those buyers at cheaper prices, we would place the Third World suppliers in the dilemma either of finding other customers or of losing valuable foreign currency. The President of Niger has said that he would sell uranium to the devil. Senator Stone —He would sell a lot of other things too, even his grandmother. Senator WOOD —Cheap Australian uranium exports only increase the chance of this by denying the Third World its present customers. Senator Stone was right to say that the President of Niger would sell a lot of other things, too. So would senators in this place who are not concerned about the effects of things we export. Uranium is one example of a destructive export which we should not be exporting. Australian exports to France are clearly unnecessary for that country's power needs, and hence are only valuable to the French in expanding their nuclear weapons stockpile. Australian contracts make a mockery of Australian protestations about Pacific testing and French regional policy when, in effect, we supply the raw material for such tests. Australia is exporting uranium at a time when we should be placing maximum pressure on the French whose nuclear expansion program may well inhibit the chances of more extensive arms reductions between the United States and the USSR. French intransigence over cutbacks to her independent nuclear deterrence force stands in the way of more meaningful superpower negotiations. As if the current abrogation of the Australian Labor Party platform on nuclear issues were not sufficient, in recent weeks we have seen proposals for the development of another Australian nuclear waste dump industry-yet another gross example of economic rationalism and political pragmatism. The Government recognised the political danger of the issue and, consequently, we saw denials that the industry would be established in Australia. But what followed were suggestions that we export the Synroc technology to some Third World country-I think the Sudan was mentioned-and so gain the economic advantages of the technology without the risks, whether they be environmental, health or political risks. Synroc technology may provide some sort of answer to the waste disposal problem, but the question remains as to its ability to contain waste for the enormous lengths of time required and under the geological and climatic changes which may occur during that time. Synroc is a product that we cannot adequately trial. What are we asking this technology to do? We are asking it to store nuclear waste longer than the human race has existed. Caesium 135, for instance, has a half-life of three million years, iodine has a half-life of 17 million years and neptunium has a half-life of two million years. At that rate by the time, say, iodine 129 has reached its half-life, Australia will have moved 170 kilometres to the north-west. The whole continent will have shifted because of the changing geology of the earth. Yet we expect somehow or other to create a technology which will survive that time, survive that geological change and keep nuclear waste safe. The history of Australian uranium mining does not inspire confidence. Of course, we have to ask the obvious question. For whom and for what purposes do we want to enrich uranium? Aside from the serious environmental risks associated with such an industry there are incredible civil rights risks. Senator MacGibbon —Ha, ha! Senator WOOD —Senator MacGibbon laughs but we have only to look at legislation that was repealed last year by the current Government-three cheers for that bit of sense. Legislative provisions were enacted in the 1970s to protect the Australian uranium mining industry under the Atomic Energy Act and the associated Approved Defence Projects Protection Act. Under that legislation it was possible for any person who boycotted, threatened to boycott, hindered or obstructed uranium mining or who advocated in speech or in writing the hindrance of uranium mining, to be fined $10,000 and gaoled for 12 months. Ancillary legislation provides for prison sentences of up to 20 years for the communication of restricted information. That legislation was repealed only last year by this Government. If it had to go to that extent to protect the natural uranium product, to what extent would it be prepared to enact draconian supervision of the civilian population to protect plutonium? The only real and effective way to control Australian uranium mining and to ensure that it is safe is, quite obviously, to leave it in the ground. There is no such thing as the peaceful atom-ask the remaining inhabitants of Chernobyl, those who live in the vicinity of the Windscale plant or Three Mile Island, or those who are currently threatened by nuclear weapons developed from so-called civilian power technologies. We cannot guarantee that the nuclear fuel cycle is safe at any point and we have demonstrably failed to control the nuclear Frankensteins we have created. The only way to safeguard Australian uranium effectively and to state unambiguously to the rest of the world that we believe that the threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons is intolerable and that we are not prepared to participate in the growth of the nuclear fuel cycle is to stop the mining and export of uranium. Senator PARER(Queensland)(9.16) —Tonight we are debating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987. As Senator MacGibbon has indicated, we do not oppose this legislation. We have just heard-and I expect that more will follow me-one of the greatest heaps of garbage in this chamber. When Senator Wood first came to the Senate I was prepared to excuse him for some of the way-out ideas he had because I thought he was young and I thought someone had put him behind some bright lights and brainwashed him. I have since found out that he is not young-he is close to 40 years of age-although he looks young, so it probably means that he has a pretty quiet life. I make those remarks because probably the greatest problem that honourable senators have, not just on this side of the chamber, but also on the other side of the chamber is in counteracting what I believe is gross misinformation. I would not mind if I believed that the people to whom I am referring in this chamber were genuine. But they cannot be genuine and sensible at the same time because they are so illogical. If Senator Wood really believed what he said I would respect him, but I do not think he does or, if he does, somehow he has been poisoned by people who have a different agenda from the rest of Australia. As I have indicated, we do not oppose the legislation. Because I expected this sort of debate tonight I believe it is proper to take this opportunity to correct much of the misinformation peddled around this country by quite irresponsible people about both uranium mining and the use of uranium. It is not that I do not know a little about radioactivity because, for the first 10 years of my working life, I had daily exposure either to X-rays or radioactive materials. In fact, they were used for both medical and industrial purposes and to good effect. We have to understand that, something that people cannot see or feel will create emotion and a fear of the unknown. It is not too different from when electricity was first brought into England. People were concerned. The same sorts of people who are making noises about uranium today and its beneficial uses, made the same noises about electricity. People were warned, `Do not turn the light on. Do not leave it on at night. Something dreadful might happen to you. You will get a disease'. That was the sort of thing that happened in those days. I suppose that the only remark I can make is that people do not change. Senator Stone —We are still getting the same thing in relation to power lines. It is exactly the same syndrome. Senator PARER —It is. Even though we have many responsible Ministers on the Labor side who would agree with this attitude there is little or no evidence of it. My concern is that no attempt is being made by the Government to correct the gross and irresponsible misinformation which is being peddled. By not correcting or attempting to correct that the Government is doing itself and this country a great disservice. Many countries are not as blessed as we are with natural energy resources. We have huge coal reserves. With the exception of a few hydro stations-which the Australian Democrats would shut down anyway, if they had a chance-all our electric power is generated by means of steaming coal. We burn hydrocarbons. In addition, millions of tonnes of steaming coal are exported for power generation overseas. The reason we are able to export is that we are also fortunate in that, compared with Northern Hemisphere coals, our coal is low in sulphur, which is of great benefit to those countries which are using steaming coal to generate electricity and which are concerned about acid rain. That is one of the benefits of our coal and it is one of the reasons why we sell it. Prior to the first oil crisis in the early 1970s, a lot of power was generated in Europe and Asia with oil. The oil shock changed all that, because prices rose considerably. The reason why oil was used in the first place was that it was easy to handle and it was cheap. Everyone will remember that first oil crisis. Bear in mind that we are talking of countries that do not have energy resources of their own. In their position, one has to ask what we would do. They were forced to look to alternative energy sources. Burning oil to generate power is akin to putting mahogany in one's fireplace. It is a great shame that 25 per cent of all oil supplied is still used to generate electricity throughout the world. That is a great misuse of a very limited resource. So the alternative resources available to those countries which were caught up in the oil shock and which were reliant on oil were coal, uranium, or hydro. As we all know, hydro-electric power can be generated only where a country has the natural facilities to do that-that is, if it does not have people like Senator Sanders stopping it from doing that. So for such countries the alternative, therefore, becomes coal or uranium. Because conversion to coal from oil required much less capital and, hence, less consumer cost, it was to Australia's benefit to export coal. Many countries, particularly South East Asian countries, moved very quickly into coal generation. For new power stations, however, resource poor countries also looked to uranium as a reliable and clean method of generating power. The technology was already developed. For instance, there had been a nuclear power station, to my knowledge, operating at Dounreay in the United Kingdom since about 1960. Senator Coulter —Calder Hall in 1956. Senator PARER —Thank you, Senator; you are right. Senator Coulter —It was first built to make nuclear weapons, though. Senator PARER —I thought that Calder Hall was built to pump water up a hill to run a hydro down the hill, but we will debate that later. From an energy point of view, 3,000 tonnes of enriched uranium is equivalent to about 30 million tonnes of coal. I ask honourable senators to put themselves in the position of an energy poor country. I can recall this matter being debated 10 years ago, when people were making noises similar to the funny noises that Senator Sanders has been making, saying to me, `Have you noticed that the countries which want uranium for generating power are the evil sorts of countries?' I asked for some examples. Every example given was of a country short of indigenous energy resources. So such countries have to make a decision. The Republic of Korea is a wonderful example. It had the choice, with its own projections, if it wanted to go nuclear, of 3,000 tonnes of enriched uranium as against 30 million tonnes of coal. Why not go for coal, it is said. One can store 10 years supply with a small stockpile-30,000 tonnes. I think that that is the figure that Senator Wood used about France. A lot of energy is stored up in that 30,000 tonnes. But 3,000 tonnes is equal to 30 million tonnes of coal. Just think of the logistics: the stockpiling, the concern, and the lack of reliability on the part of countries in which unions such as those in Australia hold back the ships. What government will make the irresponsible decision of going into something from which one day the people who live in its country cannot get heat, cannot cook their food, and cannot get a light to come on when they turn a switch, simply because of a breakdown in the chain of 30 million tonnes per year. So the advantages of shipping, handling and stockpiling uranium as compared with coal are patently obvious. I can recall-I think Senator MacGibbon referred to this-serious consideration being given in Australia in the early 1970s to a nuclear power station being built at Jervis Bay, just to keep abreast of technology. Senator Coulter —No, for nuclear weapons. Senator PARER —No, I am sorry, Senator Coulter. Senator Tate —Absolute nonsense. Senator PARER —Thank you. That was not the reason. It was to keep abreast of technology. We were, after all, blessed with our own uranium resources, and we were poised to be a major supplier to the world. The industry has grown so that it is entrenched throughout the world. I have heard all the stories about not going ahead with one or cutting back on another. Let me give a few examples. Senator Sanders —The industry says that it will phase itself out in a hundred years. Senator PARER —It might in 100 years because power will probably be generated from hydrogen by then-from water. I give a few examples. The United States has 103 units and generates 16.6 per cent of its electricity by nuclear methods. France, about which Senator Wood spoke, has 49 units and generates 70 per cent of its electricity by nuclear methods. I will just touch further on France. The use of nuclear energy for the generation of power is terribly important to France. What are the economic alternatives for France? It is not a matter of us sitting here and saying that we are economic rationalists, and that we want to sell our uranium to France at whatever price. The point is that there is a demand there for it, and we are not supplying anything like it. We supply a very small part; I will come to that later. But the French generate 70 per cent of their electricity in nuclear power stations. Senator Sanders —They have the reputation of being the dirtiest operators in the world. Senator PARER —I suppose that as we go through every country, Senator Sanders will say that they are equally dirty operators. Japan has 38 units and generates 25 per cent of its power from nuclear energy. The Federal Republic of Germany generates 29.5 per cent of its power in this way; Canada, 14.7 per cent; the United Kingdom, close to 19 per cent; Sweden, 50 per cent; Spain, 29.4 per cent; Belgium, 67 per cent; and the Republic of Korea, 40 per cent and growing-and for the reasons I mentioned as to why a country such as Korea would go nuclear. It is all very well for us to sit in a big country that is rich in energy resources and be able to have a choice. Some countries do not have a choice. They must make decisions based on the most economic course they can take, bearing in mind the safety measures associated with it. Twenty-six countries are generating power by nuclear methods. Such power generation is here to stay, yet the rubbish that our young people are being fed is such that they are convinced-and those who get involved in this matter are playing on this, and they know it-that every pound of uranium mined in Australia goes to make a bomb. That is because that sort of stuff is being peddled quite dishonestly by people such as Senator Sanders. I do not mind if they have genuine views on these matters, but when they peddle that stuff to our young people and the young believe it, they are doing a disservice not only to themselves but to the country as a whole. It is the most dishonest of propaganda, peddled by people who should know better simply for short term political gains without any concern about what the future of this country will be, or more importantly, the demands of people overseas who want to have electricity so that they can turn a switch and get a light to come on at a price that they can afford. It might suit the people I have mentioned, for their own political purposes, to play on the emotions of many genuine people, but, as I have said, in the process they are doing our country a great disservice. We are all opposed to the spread of nuclear weapons and support any moves to reduce the level of nuclear weaponry throughout the world on a multilateral basis. Sources of uranium are readily available throughout the world. As Senator Wood mentioned, the French Minister for Defence said recently that if Australia did not want to supply uranium to France, that was fine; France can obtain it from many other countries. And so it can. Let us look at the estimated reserves of uranium in various parts of the world. Seventy per cent of uranium is in Australia, Niger, South Africa and Canada. Australia has about 29 per cent. I believe that these figures are calculated on an $80 a pound cut-off cost of mining, though the price is lower today. Niger has 18.7 per cent, South Africa 14.3 per cent, Canada 10.6 per cent, Brazil 7.1 per cent, the United States of America 5.4 per cent, Namibia 5.4 per cent, and the rest of the countries outside the communist bloc have 9.5 per cent. It is worth comparing Australia with Canada. Australia has 30 per cent of the world's uranium reserves within the parameter I mentioned; and we supply 10 per cent of the world market. Canada has 10 per cent of the uranium reserves and supplies 30 per cent of the world market. Uranium for the generation of electricity has been supplied for a long time. That supply has grown substantially and is here to stay. Already it earns Australia substantial export income, and has the potential to more than double that income. I know that people such as Chas Collison, whoever he is, and Mr Peter Milton, the Federal member for La Trobe, have put out a background paper for the delegates to the 1988 Australian Labor Party National Conference on what they call uranium mining market prospects and environmental consequences. I never cease to be amazed by instant experts who come along with a young researcher, do a bit of work and become marketing experts and forecasters of supply and demand about anything; the particular product does not matter. I can recall in the 1970s, in the era of Whitlam and Connor, that the Labor Government of the day said, in its wisdom, that the world was oversupplied with coal; it would not allow any more new mines. I can remember the late Mr Connor saying, `We will not allow any more mines; just dig a little deeper'. That problem boiled to the surface. When Whitlam was thrown out, something like seven, eight or nine new mines commenced, each producing between 3 million and 4 million tonnes a year. Now people are saying that they were right, there is an oversupply of about 1 million or 2 million tonnes a year. However, production has increased by between 40 million and 50 million tonnes and there is oversupply of only 1 million or 2 million tonnes. Such people are in no position to determine the world demand for any commodity. I return to uranium. The factor that will decide whether we will sell an extra kilogram or an extra tonne of uranium will be the market. If there is no market, no-one will build a mine. However, when one listens to people such as Senator Wood, they give the impression that Australians are selling uranium. We are not. The individual mines have to try to find their markets. Senator Wood —There is a market for heroin. Does that make it right? Senator PARER —Those who have already found a market will not give it up lightly. Neither can someone now come in and build a mine and supply uranium to a market at a lower price than is already being paid, because the current capital costs are higher. They are simple facts, but I emphasise that governments and politicians are in no position to judge the market for any commodity. Senator Wood referred to heroin and asked why we do not export heroin. I am amazed that he would even make that comparison. This is not economic rationality. Heroin is one of the worst drugs that has ever been perpetrated on young people. Uranium is used to generate electricity in resource poor countries. If any honourable senator or anyone else can suggest an alternative that is cleaner, cheaper and more reliable he should suggest it. Senator Wood —What about the waste? Senator PARER —Senator Wood should go to those countries and tell them. If he can convince them, we would be delighted to go along with him. Another source of nuclear power is hydrogen from the hydrogen atom. It is abundant and exists in water. Eventually, with the development of technology, a method will be developed to control the splitting of the hydrogen atom. When that occurs nuclear energy will be available to any country in the world without having to worry about the importation of uranium. We do not oppose the Bill. However, I ask the Government to correct the quite misleading information which has been spread by quite dishonest people around Australia, and to get the message through that our uranium is supplied to countries that generate electricity from nuclear power stations. That technology is here to stay and it will grow with improved technology. Australia has the uranium and also has an obligation to supply it to those countries that require it for peaceful purposes. If we are to get the benefit of value added we must look at uranium enrichment, and the sooner the better. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.36) —We have heard a lot of allegations about nuclear power. However, I should like to address myself to the Bill. We are discussing the Nuclear Non-proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987. The original Nuclear Non-proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 prohibited the communication or processing of information applicable to enrichment, reprocessing, heavy water production, nuclear weapons production or other matters without a permit. In other words, one can distribute design information on nuclear weapons if the Minister allows. Because a patent application could communicate some of the information covered by the original Act, this Bill amends the Patents Act 1952 so that the Australian Safeguards Office can issue or deny permits for patent applications dealing with enrichment, reprocessing and so on. It should be illegal to distribute information on nuclear weapon production, reprocessing or heavy water production under any circumstances. Information on enrichment to greater than 20 per cent uranium 235 should also be banned, given that non-proliferation is the objective of the Bill. However, the original Act is the place in which this should be done. We still wonder why the Government wishes to leave these options open. So we support the Bill. We believe that the Bill is a necessary adjunct to the existing legislation if the Government wishes to continue down this track. But of course we do not in any way approve of the use of uranium. In that instance at least, honourable senators who have contributed to this debate have portrayed the Australian Democrats' position quite accurately. We do not believe that uranium should be mined. It should not be milled, processed or enriched. It should be left in the ground. We have heard a number of statements about safeguards. Senator Lewis said there are no problems with safeguards on shipments of uranium. We heard a number of honourable senators say that uranium is clean, safe power. I wonder why they so vehemently support nuclear power. I wonder if that is because if they do not support it-- Senator Stone —Another conspiracy. Senator SANDERS —Here is Senator Stone. I wonder whether Senator Stone really has any qualifications. He apparently is an economist. Economists are those who throw the entrails of animals upon the ground and interpret them. Then they take us down some path or other. They also follow the stockmarket. They do not lead it; they follow it, and tell us that we will have a bull market or a bear market. However, they do not seem to have any real expertise. Therefore it will be interesting to see what, if anything, Senator Stone will contribute to this debate. We have this technology worship by uneducated people, people who perhaps have not had the opportunity to understand the real world. Theirs is a worship of technology to save us from ourselves so that we can continue to sell whatever we wish to sell, in whatever quantity, however dangerous it may be to the environment or to our ourselves, and then ask technology to solve our problems. I think that that basically is the plea of the apologists for the nuclear power industry. They say that somehow technology will solve the problems of waste and of the dangers of radiation; in fact, solve the problems of the inefficiencies of the nuclear power plants themselves. They want to believe in progress. They want to believe in technology, otherwise they will have to accept responsibility for their actions. They do not want to do this. What has happened in regard to radiation over the years? We have had a number of experts say that, in fact, radiation was good for you. In the early days radiation was considered to be quite beneficial when it was first discovered. Then, of course, it was discovered that radiation was not beneficial and in fact there were hazards. Over the years the dose limits have been consistently lowered. In the New Scientist of 19 November 1987 we read that Britain's National Radiological Protection Board: yesterday called for a dramatic reduction in the radiation doses permitted for workers and for the general public. The proposals pose problems for the nuclear industry as well as for some doctors and radiographers. Basically, the Board requires the figures to be lowered because of new analysis of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. The commission in charge of the whole operation has refused to reduce these limits because although it agreed that the latest analysis for the Japanese data doubled the fatal cancer risk, it decided against acting immediately to reduce dose limits because of the difficulties it would pose for the nuclear power industry. Therefore, there are increasing dangers and they are becoming increasingly apparent in terms of radiation damage. There is also the increasing danger of the construction of nuclear weapons. Throughout this debate we have heard of the wonderful safeguards for uranium in general and our uranium in particular. Let us follow a case history of what happened to a shipment of our Australian uranium from the Ranger mine. This matter first surfaced publicly in articles in a German magazine Der Spiegel. My office, in particular my researcher Richard Bolt, had some previous information and had already sought to verify information about this operation. We received a number of documents directly from our contacts in the European Parliament, some of whom I met last August. As these documents were in German it took us a while to translate them. We have had three translations done; they agree. This is what the documents outline. This information was printed in abbreviated form in Der Spiegel. We now have the complete story. It involves Euratom, the nuclear watchdog in Europe. It involves a company called RWE, a German power production firm. It involves Nukem, another German firm and a firm called ILL which is a French firm located in France. Nukem made a deal to sell 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium-three bombs worth-to a French-German-British research reactor, in Grenoble, France; this was ILL. Nukem then started looking for uranium it could sell because it did not actually have any uranium to sell at that time. Nulux, Nukem's Luxembourg subsidiary, gave Nukem the rights to 2,900 kilograms of United States-origin uranium scraps. This was in the form of uranyl nitrate (UNH), which cannot be enriched. There was then a swap of materials. Nukem then arranged to swap its uranium scraps with RWE. In return, RWE gave Nukem a cylinder of 1,289 kilograms of Australian-origin uranium hexafluoride (UF6)-which can be enriched. Incidentally, this came from Ranger as yellowcake and was made into uranium hexafluoride in France. That company also received 2,388 kilograms of natural uranium, to balance up the amounts swapped. This was legal. There was nothing illegal at all under the safeguards arrangements in this operation. However, there was then a swap of labels; a swap of nationality. This is where the illegality came in. Nukem did not want to-I quote from the document-`carry . . . the risk associated with necessary approval procedures with Australia' to enrich the Australian-origin uranium to weapons grade, in case Australia refused. Enrichment of Australian uranium to above 20 per cent U-235 requires written approval from the Australian Government. Nukem and RWE agreed, having swapped the material earlier, then to swap back the labels on some of that material. It was a conspiracy to defraud. Senator MacGibbon —At last we have got it. Senator SANDERS —Yes, we do have it at last because the crux of the safeguards claims of the Australian Government is that we know exactly where our uranium is going and that it will be used for the purposes of which we approve. However, it is obvious that in this situation the labels were switched. This is beyond refute. This happened. The `Made in Australia' label on the uranium hexafluoride cylinder was stripped off and attached to some of RWE's uranium scraps. The United States label on the uranium scraps was stripped off and stuck on Nukem's uranium hexafluoride. Before the flag swap, the dealings had been above board. Nukem had obtained a cylinder of Australian-origin UF6 and RWE had obtained an amount of uranium scraps in the form of uranyl nitrate. However, by swapping the flags, Nukem gave its uranium hexafluoride an American label. The United States does not oppose enrichment of its uranium to weapons grade, so the UF6 was sent to the United States for enrichment. Nukem got 25 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium back, which it passed on to ILL. Meanwhile, the scraps owned by RWE acquired an Australian label thus putting it under stricter safeguards. But who cared? Who cares about safeguards on scraps? The uranium itself had already been processed. Where was Euratom, the atomic watchdog in all this? Euratom actually approved this deal. We have Euratom documents and one official in Euratom told Nukem that the flag swap was an opportunity to break down existing legal procedures preventing such swaps in order to create a legal precedent. The same official also advised Nukem that it should make the application for the swap, rather than RWE, because Nukem's application carried more weight. Another official assured the companies involved that, `in case of an inspection of one of these transactions, you would be notified'. Therefore, the watchdog in Europe on whom we hope to rely simply was in collusion with the companies doing the swap. Incidentally, all this is under investigation by the European Parliament and the German Government. Nukem could not have enriched the uranium scraps it originally obtained from Nulux because of the pressures of time and cost. Therefore, removing the Australian label from the uranium hexafluoride made possible a deal which would otherwise not have been possible. RWE seems to have been charitable in swapping usable Australian uranium for the US scrap owned by Nukem, until it is realised that the two companies are related. RWE owns 45 per cent of Nukem. According to Der Spiegel, RWE has received bribes from the nuclear transport firm Transnuklear. Transnuklear, which is 66.7 per cent owned by Nukem, shipped the Australian-origin uranium hexafluoride obtained by Nukem to RWE. Euratom at different times used different methods for calculating the quantity of uranyl nitrate which was equivalent to the uranium hexafluoride which came from Australia. The first method compares the equivalent quantities of natural uranium in two consignments of enriched uranium, while the second compares their U-235 contents. The first method found that 2,313 kilograms of the US-origin uranyl nitrate was equivalent to the Australian-origin uranium hexafluoride shipment which, in fact, was a gas. The second gave an answer of 2,176 kilograms-a difference of 137 kilograms. Clearly, uranium could be made to disappear or reappear by selective use of the two calculating techniques. The Australian Government's response was quite similar to that of Senator Stone and his disbelieving friend, Senator MacGibbon. The Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, said in the Senate on 17 March that the transactions referred to were consistent with the Australian-EURATOM safeguards agreement. On 22 March Senator Cook said that the swaps were of equivalent materials. Yet, the Nukem and EURATOM documents show that Nukem could not have obtained the weapons grade uranium it sold to ILL if it had not obtained the Australian uranium hexafluoride and stripped it of its label. If the swaps were consistent with Australia's agreement with EURATOM, it is clear that our safeguards can be rendered useless by swapping the flags on a shipment of usable Australian uranium with an amount of useless uranium from a country with less strict conditions. If the swaps were not consistent with the agreement, the Minister has misled the Parliament. This situation has come to light and we do not know how many times this sort of thing has gone on that we have not noticed. Obviously, what we need is a new regime for dealing with the problem of safeguards. To this end, the Australian Democrats have developed a safeguards Bill, which we will introduce in here, which will plug many of these loopholes. It will be necessary to use this safeguards Bill because even Minister Kerin has been quoted in a newspaper as saying that if our allegations-in fact, they are not allegations at all; they are facts-are correct, and they are correct, the Australian Government will simply have to reassess its safeguards arrangements. This will take place, because it is patently obvious that at this very moment the Australian Government does not know where its uranium is going. So the safeguards must be overhauled. We also need an attitudinal change. Often in this chamber people who do not understand a problem, or do not wish to face a problem, will denigrate those who try to make the problem apparent to people. If honourable senators wish to influence others to follow their way of thinking, they will have to do a bit more research on the facts and indulge in far less personal abuse. Perhaps then their story-if it is a saleable story about the safety of uranium and nuclear power-would be listened to. However, at the moment they are not making the running for two reasons. One is that they are trying to sell a very poor product-namely, nuclear power-and the other is that the way they are approaching their sale is based on profit, greed and self-interest. I think that this nation's youth can see right through that. The reason this nation's youth do listen to the arguments of those who would scale down the use of nuclear power is that they make sense. An argument based on a quick buck now and the hope of a technological fix to bale us out of the problems we are now creating for ourselves simply does not make sense to this nation's youth and that is why they are not listening to it. We have canvassed a number of things tonight in the area of nuclear power. Senator Coulter, I think, will take on the economic aspect which certainly needs to be covered. I reiterate my contention that safeguards do not exist for the use of Australian uranium at this time and they must be implemented very soon or more and more Australian uranium will end up in the earth's nuclear warheads. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(9.54) —I am very pleased to see Senator Stone in the chamber tonight after my introduction by Senator Sanders and was pleased to see his reaction, which clearly was one of disbelief. I hope that he will stay here and listen to the arguments. I wish to develop principally two arguments. One is to counter the drift of Senator MacGibbon's speech, which was based on an idea of technological determinism that somehow or other-I think that I am quoting him correctly-we cannot unlearn nuclear physics. Nobody suggests that we should unlearn nuclear physics, but the Australian Democrats certainly suggest that we have reached a stage in our technological development where we need to be far more cautious and wise about the application of our knowledge. Certainly, we need to push forward on many fronts. We need to learn a lot more about nuclear physics because there are a number of aspects of nuclear physics which are extremely useful to us. But because we can do something no longer means that a wise person will necessarily apply that technology. Quite clearly, there are technologies which are dangerous and which a wise person will not apply. A fairly recent example was a debate that went on in the United States over the development of supersonic transport, which resulted in a decision not to apply that technology. What we are learning now about the damage to the high stratosphere from a number of pollutant gases indicates that that was a very wise decision. As Senator Stone has pointed out, doubtless if he had been advising the British Government he would have been one of those in favour of Concorde and would have said that those who opposed Concorde were Luddites. The English went ahead with Concorde and have produced not only a very uneconomic monster but also one that is causing damage to the high atmosphere in its flights. That is the first point I want to make. It is not Luddite to recognise that some technologies are inherently dangerous and it is not wise to apply them. That is not the same as saying that one should not learn about those things and relate that knowledge to one's understanding of nature rather than to the exploitation of that knowledge for economic gain. In making my second point I am going slightly against what my colleague Senator Sanders said earlier. It is not economic to develop nuclear energy. Therefore, it is not economic for us to go ahead with developing nuclear mines. I think that there is a very sound argument why investments in other industries in Australia would be far more economic. Let us look at the costs. Senator MacGibbon —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. This rambling discourse around the far reaches of fantasy is one thing, but at not one stage has the senator on his feet given the Senate any indication of the Bill to which he is talking, let alone addressed one clause or element of the Bill. Would you bring him back on a point of reference? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —The Bill before the Senate is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987. Whilst the debate on the Bill has ranged widely on uranium and nuclear matters, it is still necessary for Senator Coulter to relate his argument to the Bill. Senator Wood —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I point out that Senator Stone has contributed as much as anyone else to this debate and he has not been on his feet. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator COULTER —We are addressing a Bill which relates to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The relevance of what I am saying is that Senator MacGibbon indicated-again, I hope that I am quoting his words correctly-that the Non-Proliferation Treaty was one of the great international agreements. He went on to say that the only way to use nuclear energy safely, or to export uranium from Australia safely, was in conformity with the Non-Proliferation Treaty which required this Bill to bring it into line with certain requirements in relation to the patents legislation. The point of my remarks is to stress that there is another way to go, namely, not to export uranium. That is the alternative to the proposal which both Senator MacGibbon and Senator Parer have put up. Both those senators and other senators have been addressing this point, so what I am saying is completely relevant. I think we need to look at the costs of going down the nuclear energy path. We need to establish that there is a legitimate alternative, namely, not to export uranium. Let us look at the reliability of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the body which is responsible internationally for looking after safety. I point to a paper which appeared about a year before the Chernobyl accident occurred which was written by the head of the safety division of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This nuclear physicist pointed out in his article that to some extent he had been responsible for the design of the RMBK1000 reactor-the type of reactor at Chernobyl which blew its top. (Quorum formed) I thank Senator Panizza for bringing others into the chamber to hear what I have to say. I was saying that the head of the reactor safety division of the International Atomic Energy Agency was the man who was partly responsible for the design of the RMBK1000 reactor at Chernobyl. About a year before the accident at Chernobyl he wrote an article which appeared in the journal of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In it he pointed out the inherent safety of that reactor and that it was physically impossible for that reactor to undergo the melt down that actually occurred. That is one measure of the reliability of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Opposition has pointed out repeatedly that we do not have reliable information. It presumably implies that it has eminently reliable information. Mr Tony Benn, who was a Minister for Energy in the former Labour government in Great Britain, has repeatedly pointed out that while he was the Minister he was not given information by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority regarding the repeated leaks and accidents which were occurring in the reprocessing plant at Windscale. With this in mind, I find it rather remarkable that the Opposition can sit here and claim that it has some enormous prescience in these matters. I would like to look particularly at the links between the civil and military programs. Honourable senators will remember that not so long ago a worker in the United Kingdom Central Electricity Generating Board was dismissed from his employment because he discovered that the Americans were attempting to buy plutonium from the United Kingdom civilian nuclear program for use in the United States of America military weaponry. Over many years that worker happened to be in favour of civil nuclear energy precisely because he had maintained that there was a distinct separation between the civil and military programs. He was so disgusted when he discovered what was happening in the relationships between the US military program and the United Kingdom civil program that he went public on it. He lost his job, which was rather unwise of the Central Electricity Generating Board because he then took the Board to court for reinstatement and this information came out. Clearly, there are links every day at the practical level between the civilian and the military programs. We know that the Chernobyl reactor blew its top. What was the actual cost of that occurrence? The Russians themselves, who presumably would want to play down the damage in terms of human ill-health, have estimated that up to 40,000 people in western Russia alone will eventually develop cancer as a consequence of that reactor accident. We saw on our television screens numbers of medium sized towns which are totally deserted because of contamination from that reactor. John Gofman, the Emeritus Professor of Medical Physics in California, has estimated that one million cancers will arise throughout the whole of Western Europe as a result of the Chernobyl reactor accident. We have seen the total destruction of the culture of the indigenous people of Norway and Sweden because of contamination of the lichen and their inability to continue to have a culture based substantially on the reindeer. Those are just some of the costs which are associated with one single nuclear reactor accident. France has been mentioned as a country which has a substantial proportion of electricity based on nuclear energy. In 1979 two unions associated with the building and the operation of French nuclear reactors disclosed that there were substantial cracks in a critical part of the core of all the light water French nuclear reactors. That was written up in the journal Nature; it was commented on in the journal Science. The Professor of Metallurgy at Oxford University confirmed that the technology was not available to allow them to be repaired. The consequence of that was that the French Government refused to allow any further public disclosure of information in relation to these irreparable faults in their reactors. I predict that the next Chernobyl reactor accident will occur in France. What price our exports to France when that next reactor accident happens? Sweden was mentioned tonight as one country which has a number of nuclear reactors and which does at the moment derive a high proportion of its electricity from nuclear sources. But Opposition senators have not revealed that several years ago the Swedes decided, as a result of a referendum, to phase out their nuclear reactors. As a consequence of the Chernobyl accident they have decided that that phase-out should occur rather more rapidly. Senator MacGibbon mentioned that acquaintances of his had gone to the Taj Mahal but had been unable to see it because of the smoke from burning cow dung. He went on to develop the argument that there was some relief for Third World countries from the use of fossil fuels by their going nuclear. As I have pointed out in this place before, if Senator MacGibbon looks at the Sixth Report on Environmental Pollution-the so-called Flowers report from the United Kingdom-he will find that this question was examined quite closely. Its conclusion was that the development of nuclear energy actually increased the use of fossil fuels; it did not decrease it. There are a number of reasons for that. The first is the very high capital cost of nuclear power stations. I am disappointed that Senator Parer is not here because he mentioned the 1973-74 oil price shock. The interesting thing about that was that when the price of oil went up one might have expected-on the arguments that we have heard from the Opposition-that there would have been a demand for more nuclear energy. In fact, in 1973-74 there was a substantial downturn in the demand for nuclear reactors; there was not an upturn at all. The reason for that is that there is not a clear substitution, and I will go into that in a moment. Moreover, the high capital cost at the front end of building nuclear power stations at a time of economic stringency prevented the use of such power stations. Another reason is that nuclear energy provides electricity only. That gives the lie to the nonsense about Third World countries because by and large the people of those countries do not even have cables to take electricity to their homes. There is no way in which the Indian peasant who is burning cow dung to cook the family food at night will somehow hook up an electric stove supplied with power from a nuclear power station. That is simply not on. Senator MacGibbon —You want them to stay like that forever don't you, so long as you are smug in your isolation? You don't care about anybody else. Senator COULTER —I hope Senator Mac- Gibbon stays here-- Senator Wood —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 422. Senator Stone has now left us but the continual interjections from his corner of the chamber are downright contemptuous. I ask you to call honourable senators to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Whilst it is disorderly to interject, throughout the debate there have been interjections from many parts of the Senate during a series of speeches. If the level of interjections had been too high I would have intervened. There is no immediate point of order. Senator COULTER —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. There is certainly no intention to leave the Third World countries in the position they are in now. If I have time I will get onto some of the far more economic alternatives. In fact, what has happened in the Third World countries-and this was mentioned by Senator Vallentine earlier-is that reactors have been substantially subsidised by First World countries. The reactor that went into the Philippines was a good example. Such reactors provide electricity for people who are already extremely well off in those countries; they do not relieve the poverty of people at the bottom of the economic heap. Let us look at the cost of waste which is the end product of the nuclear fuel cycle. Those who have extolled the virtues of synroc as a way of storing waste have disparaged the use of glass, arguing that it is an inadequate medium for the long term storage of nuclear waste. Recent suggestions have been made that we might store waste in Australia. I point out that the United States of America Geological Survey-the official United States body that looks at these matters-made a report several years ago in which it stressed very strongly that past geological stability was no guarantee for future geological stability. One cannot predict the future in geology from what has happened in the past. The claim has been made that there are arid and unpopulated parts of Australia and elsewhere in the world which can be used for waste. When one is contemplating storing the material that will have to be stored for at least one thousand years if the fuel rods are reprocessed-for hundreds of thousands of years if they are unreprocessed-the idea that one can rely on those areas remaining arid and unpopulated is one of the most arrogant pieces of nonsense that I have ever heard. It presupposes that we can make judgments about the future uses of these areas by generations as yet unborn and that we can impose our will on them. As far as the waste program is concerned, in recent years the US has had a considerable problem trying to find somewhere to put this waste. We are all aware of the `not in my backyard' syndrome. The most recent exercise in the United States has involved the identification of three possible sites, which rapidly came down to one site, to which everybody objected. The estimates by the Department of Energy in the United States suggest a figure of $9 billion to develop that one site. That is the tail end of this nuclear fuel cycle which is supposed to be economic and is supposed to be a solution to the world's energy needs. Let us look briefly at a step back from that-the reprocessing. Perhaps Opposition senators have not heard about the only substantial civilian reprocessing plant ever to operate in the United States-at West Valley on the outskirts of New York. Throughout the whole of its life, between 1967 and 1971, it had to employ 10 temporary workers for every one permanent worker who went through that reprocessing plant. For economic reasons the company had decided on a close-handling technique. All its workers were exposed up to and above the limit, so it cycled unemployed youth through its reprocessing plant at the rate of 10 temporary workers for every one permanent worker, not for their skill in work in that factory but simply for the ability of their bodies to absorb radiation. They were employed until they had absorbed three months worth of radiation-in the old units five rads divided by four-and they were then fired. Some of those workers worked for as little as three minutes in that factory. Those were the conditions imposed by the economic constraints-the sort of economic criteria that Senator Stone would impose on this industry. That is what has happened to this industry. What are the alternatives? Perhaps the most dramatic thing I have seen in the last couple of days was a brief newspaper account of the latest nuclear reactor to be opened on the outskirts of New York. The newspaper article was really about the fact that this reactor had been officially opened and two days later had to close down because there had been a fault in a pump supplying the cooling water to the emergency core cooling system. The significant point about this article was that it mentioned the price of this 1,080 megawatt reactor. The price was $US8.6 billion-$8.60 per watt to build a nuclear reactor. I can go out of this chamber tomorrow and buy off the shelf a solar panel at less than $10 per watt. In other words, the cost of solar generated power is now in precisely the same ballpark as that of nuclear energy. It should be remembered that if I buy a solar panel the cost includes the capital cost and the running cost. I do not have to continue to buy nuclear fuel, even with the 3,000 or 30,000 tonnes that Senator Parer was talking about. Technologies can be put into Third World countries which will provide the local needs for power and do it a lot more cheaply than nuclear power. They do not require the enormous front end costs of nuclear power stations-capital that Third World countries do not have, in case Senator MacGibbon has not noticed that. That is one of the things that Third World countries do not have much of. They do not require the installation of very expensive power lines. They do not involve the extensive use of other fuels for the transport of materials in and out. It is notable, and I think Senator Parer made the point, that 26 countries are using nuclear energy. How many countries are there in the world? Senator McLean —One hundred and seventy. Senator COULTER —There are 170 countries, and figures were given of the amount of electricity generated by nuclear sources. Electricity is a tiny part of the total energy needs and total energy used by many countries. The amount of energy derived from nuclear sources in the world is actually still less than the amount derived from firewood. So the points I am trying to make are that we are in a stage of considerable potential dominance over our environment, leading to very considerable damage if we do not apply our knowledge and our technology very wisely and very carefully. Because we can do something, we do not necessarily any longer have to do it. We should not necessarily do certain things. That is not to say that we turn our backs on knowledge, as Senator MacGibbon has tried to indicate. We learn as much as we can about this world but we wisely apply those technologies. We apply them when there is least damage and when there is most benefit. Nuclear energy is not one of those technologies that produce a particular benefit and it certainly poses considerable hazards. There is abundant evidence now to show that the use of nuclear energy will increase the use of fossil fuel. It will exacerbate the damage from the use of fossil fuel-the greenhouse effect, the pollution over cities, the lung cancers and so on, within cities-and, moreover, there are far more economic ways to develop energy, particularly for the Third World. Perhaps I could very briefly speak about a piece of research work that was done in Adelaide in relation to synroc, because I do not think it is widely known. That is some work done by a physicist, Ernst Hersch, who now works in the physics department at Adelaide University. He has shown that synroc or glass exposed to moisture and high levels of radiation to which it is necessarily exposed undergoes-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.24) —I speak in this very important debate on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill largely because of motivation-(Quorum formed) This debate is very significant and I wish to speak in it largely because of comments made earlier in the debate by Senator Lewis with regard to young people. However, can I say that though the Australian Democrats are supporting this legislation we see it largely as window-dressing, while the nation continues, at the behest of this Labor Government, to export uranium and, in particular, to export uranium to France. The Bill is related largely to the question of whether associated technology is possessed or communicated without relevant permit or authority from the Australian Safeguards Office. My colleagues in this debate have already canvassed significantly the value of international safeguards under which this Government has permitted the continuation of the export of uranium. Perhaps I can just repeat that all those arguments have demolished any argument from the Government or the Opposition that there are any safeguards of any significance. I would have to agree very strongly with the Minister when he said in his second reading speech that the Bill is not momentous. It could scarcely be less momentous when this country continues to export uranium, and to export uranium particularly to France. The Australian Democrats are appalled at a report in the Canberra Times of the twenty-fourth of this month which highlighted the fact that the French have used and exploited the recent Canberra Festival to promote the issue of uranium sales to that country. The Gang Gang column of 24 March highlights the fact that a glossy brochure was put out to promote the spectacular Versailles production in Canberra, France's bicentennial gift to Australia-a full colour yellowcake advertisement shining from the glossy brochure, the column told us. The article went on to say: Uranium is a touchy subject between the two countries at the moment. I wish it were just a shade more touchy to the extent that we might see some action by the Government. The article talked about factions within the ALP and splits in Cabinet and so on. The article went on: . . . the French Minister for Defence has recently said the French don't even need our stuff, and feelings are always high over the nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll. The article suggested: Maybe the ad should have been kept out of the promotional material for what was a birthday gesture- our two hundredth birthday- of friendship and peace, and a breathtakingly beautiful one at that. The article concluded with this comment: Still, some Australians felt at a time when we were talking birthday cake we could have done without yellowcake. I must say that I certainly endorse that sentiment. I use that to underline the fact that I agree with the Minister that this is not a momentous Bill. My colleagues have outlined the very strong scepticism of the Australian Democrats about the value-in fact the absolute lack of value-of international safeguards. As many in the chamber and the public will know, Senator Sanders and his staff-notably Richard Bolt-have been instrumental in recent days in documenting the protestations of this Government that we do not have a problem and that our uranium is not ending up in nuclear weapons. Though the protestations are strong and the Government is always claiming that, that is something that cannot be proved. It is a sleight of hand issue and Australians are concerned about it. The Government's claim has been shot to ribbons by the Australian Democrats. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.30) —Today the Senate debated the Opposition's Bill to amend the Flags Act, the purpose of which was to protect the flag from change, except by way of a referendum of the Australian people. In thinking about the flag, one automatically thinks of the men and women who fought for this country under that flag. Tonight I want to draw the Senate's attention to a matter which affects some of those veterans and which is in the hands of the Government to remedy. I refer to the members of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) who served on HMAS Sydney and other ships during the Vietnam War and who are eligible under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to repatriation benefits. These are veterans who are still, after all these years, being refused entitlement to the two medals for Vietnam service-namely, the Australian Vietnam medal and the South Vietnamese Government Campaign medal. These naval veterans are considered by the Navy to have been: . . . exposed to potential risk through their being in continual danger when in the vicinity of the Vietnamese coast, and particularly during unloading operations off Vung Tau. This is borne out by Navy Office files and by standing orders for Vietnam deployments. A naval minute of December 1984 to the Assistant Chief of Defence Force Policy from Rear Admiral Knox, then Deputy Chief of Naval Staff, said that the Chiefs of Staff Committee endorsement of the potential risk was evidenced in an October 1967 assessment which stated that: . . . there is a risk of attack by the Viet Cong during concentration and deployment phases in South Vietnam and during movement through South Vietnamese ports. Underwater attacks on shipping is possible in South Vietnamese ports. Rear Admiral Knox went on to detail the special precautions taken by the Navy against underwater attacks from 1967 to 1979. He concluded by saying that these precautions indicated that an attack on RAN ships was considered a real possibility and that there was little doubt that this perception was engendered in all personnel involved. This document was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, and I seek leave to have the annexure A referred to in Admiral Knox's minute incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows: EXAMPLES OF THE THREAT AT VUNG TAU 1. In formulating HMAS SYDNEY'S programme December 1967-July 1968, the Fleet Commander in a signal to Australian Commonwealth Naval Board on 27 October 1967 stated ``Turn around in Vung Tau has been limited to one day to avoid remaining overnight in hostile anchorage. Bad weather or enemy activity could increase the time.'' 2. DNI advice to CNS dated 16 July 1968 regarding Vung Tau stated ``. . . SYDNEY should spend as little time as possible in any port in South Vietnam including Vung Tau''. In his penscript to this advice CNS wrote ``I could not agree that the benefit of SYDNEY remaining off Vung Tau for longer than the minimum time required to complete her prime task justifies the possible risks involved.'' 3. The Viet Cong attacked Vung Tau with rockets from Long Song Island in April 1968. 4. In June 1968 an intelligence report stated that an unidentified enemy platoon moved onto Long Song Island to reportedly shell Vung Tau with 122mm rocket and 82mm mortar. 5. A sampan carrying four Viet Cong was ambushed near Vung Tau in March 1969. A further five Viet Cong were killed when their sampan was ambushed in June 1969 north of Long Song Island. 6. Two enemy swimmers/sappers were found in Vung Tau harbour in May 1969. An improvised mine containing 60lbs of explosives and two Russian mines were located. 7. In June 1970, a black plastic bag containing explosives was found slung on a line between the wharf and the USS MEEKER COUNTY, berthed at the De Long pier in Vung Tau harbour. Senator NEWMAN —I thank the Senate. The document is entitled `Examples of the Threat at Vung Tau' and clearly demonstrates the potential risk through there being a continuing danger. These veterans are entitled to the return from active service badge, but are not entitled to the medals. These servicemen marched as veterans with their Army and Air Force colleagues in the welcome home march last year, but were denied the medals they wanted to wear. HMAS Sydney made 22 voyages to Vung Tau between 1965 and 1972 bringing troops and ammunition. Other documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the Director of Naval Intelligence considered in 1968 that HMAS Sydney was a tempting target from a propaganda and political point of view; that HMAS Sydney should spend as little time as possible in any port in South Vietnam, including Vung Tau; that allied ships were mined in Vung Tau harbour; that top secret signals relating to a reduction in the escort commitment included one which said: It is essential for the safety of the ship for a continuous escort to be provided from Sydney to Vung Tau. These medals are not awarded for valour or heroism, but as recognition of operational services to Australia in a time of war. The National Congress of the Returned Servicemen's League last year reaffirmed its stand to have the Vietnam medal issued to all sailors serving in Vietnam. Last year, the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, refused the application of members of HMAS Sydney and the Vietnam Logistical Support Veterans' Association for eligibility for these medals. Tonight I once again ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. Men who served this country in that hidden war deserve recognition for their service and for their readiness to face whatever danger their country required of them. In the name of compassion and justice, I ask that the Minister reconsider this matter. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.36) —Last night there was a news item that I heard, as did a number of my constituents, as a result of which some have contacted me and other senators who have mentioned the matter to me. The item related to the carpet in the new House of Representatives which apparently is to be removed because of some colour imperfection. Some of the news items indicated that it was likely to be destroyed-as one person put to me, because of the Customs Act. I suggest that probably what happened was that the carpet came in without payment of sales tax or import duty or whatever; and that would make sense. What has caused my constituents to be amazed, astonished or angry in turn is the fact that a good carpet is being destroyed when many people feel that it could be used by a number of organisations and could be made available to them. That cannot be done by the owner of the carpet because of the duty question. However, it must surely be possible for the Minister to intervene to ensure that the carpet can be put to good use and not destroyed. Apparently the carpet does not belong to the Parliament House Construction Authority. It still belongs to the person who is supplying it. It would appear to be a gross act of waste, to say the least, if this carpet were to be thrown out, if in fact that is the case. Whatever it is, it has caused a fair amount of interest and anxiety. Perhaps the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) could take up the matter and let us know the true story and what is to happen to the carpet. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.37) —I wish to speak in the adjournment debate tonight on a matter which is causing a great amount of fear, frustration and anger within local governments and the people they serve-that is, the massive cuts in road funding being considered by this Government. Local government across Australia is confronting the most severe threat to road funding in decades as a result of a number of options identified by the Government in its quest to further lower the percentage of the fuel tax spent on roads. The Labor Government's record in road funding is already abysmal, with road funding decreasing by 40 per cent in real terms over the last four years to the lowest level in many years. Of the 28.8c per litre that the Government receives in fuel tax, only 5.355c is actually returned for road funding. To return to 1983-84 levels of road funding, approximately 7c per litre needs to be spent. The Government has chosen to ignore that the increase in upkeep costs will mean greater competition for funds that are remaining for new works. At present about 60 per cent of arterial roads expenditure and up to 90 per cent of local roads expenditure is required for upkeep. Funds provided by Federal road programs are a major source of new construction expenditure. How is Australia to meet the increased demand for roads and road use in the future? By the year 2000, total travel is expected to grow by 60 per cent and road freight is expected to double. When one considers also that 77 per cent of all domestic freight is moved by road and the importance of reliable domestic transport to the competitiveness of our crucial export sector, it is counterproductive even to suggest a further tightening of road funding restrictions. We hear much from this Government about its commitment to generate employment. Is the Government aware that roads and road transport related activities employ 500,000 people, or about 1 in 13 of the Australian work force? The Australian Roads Outlook report claims that every $1m of road construction expenditure generates about 61 person years of employment. The roads sector has the highest employment generating capacity of all sectors which produce a physical product. The report goes on rightly to say that road improvements have significantly contributed to the wealth of this country with a road system valued at almost $100 billion. Continued investment will reap further social and economic benefits for the community. On average, each $1 invested in roads returns over $2 in benefits. To preserve this asset the Government must allocate sufficient funds for road upkeep and for the expansion of the road system to cater for future needs. Failure to do so will impose large costs on the community, not only in terms of forfeiting employment and road investment returns but also in terms of soaring industry costs. It is estimated that, for every $1m reduction in upkeep expenditure, industry's transport costs increase by $3m. However, despite all this, the Government is considering a number of options as a result of the report of the Cameron Independent Committee of Inquiry into the Distribution of Federal Road Grants, which will further lower the priority given to Australian roads. Before I detail these options it should be pointed out that, since its release last year, the Cameron report has received considerable scrutiny by Australia's road making authorities. One of the most persistent criticisms that has been levelled at the report has been the methodology used to come up with its recommendations which are so obviously out of place. State road authorities have said that the indicators used are of doubtful relevance. The report relies heavily on outdated statistics. Arbitrary weights were then applied which resulted in a simple distribution based on traffic volume. As a result, the report is considerably biased towards the more heavily trafficked roads in urban areas to the possible future detriment of roads in rural areas, even though these areas generate the bulk of the country's export wealth. Queensland in particular would be disadvantaged by such a bias if the findings were taken as they currently stand and implemented. Many of the small rural shires' only source of employment is in the councils or railways. If we take away the source of this income through further decreasing road funding we will virtually destroy many small local communities in Queensland and I think that would apply in many other States. The Cameron report led the Government to consider a number of specific options. I believe that there are departmental committees to make their recommendations on future strategies by the end of the month. The decisions are expected to be announced in the May economic statement-decisions which will probably determine the Commonwealth's road funding commitment for the next three years. It is, therefore, of vital importance that the options being floated by the Government be debated in the public arena so that the Government is made aware of the significant opposition to its proposals as they now stand. These options include holding the total of Commonwealth road funds to $1,245m for the fifth year in succession; cutting total road funding below this level, possibly by dropping funding for local roads which would represent a loss of some $36m to Queensland; and absorbing arterial and local road funding into the united financial assistance grants which State governments receive from the Federal Government. In response to the Government's range of proposals the Australian Local Government Association, which represents Australia's 836 local authorities, has slammed the Government's approach and criticised its credibility for reneging on its road funding commitments over the past three years. It is obvious that current levels of funding are inadequate to support Australia's growing infrastructure. Many provincial and rural local authorities would be crippled if the local roads category were scrapped. Rate increases of between 25 per cent and 50 per cent would be needed to offset such cuts. There would be a fall in employment and yet another increase in our welfare bill. Senator Reynolds is not in the chamber tonight. I hope that she is receiving as many phone calls and letters as I am from many concerned constituents. As Minister for Local Government she must be very aware that this latest move by her Government amounts to a bitter betrayal of the people whose interests she is supposed to protect, especially in view of her other role-that is, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. The recent report on the survey of women in Australia served to highlight the need for additional Federal expenditure on local roads. Of the women surveyed 69 per cent believed that roads should be a priority service for government funding. I note that roads were placed ahead of health and medical services, better education and training and community welfare services. The message is clear. Rural women want better transport systems and roads. Rural shires will be starved of road funds if the Federal Government moves away from its commitment for direct involvement in local roads. Senator Reynolds should understand that. If she believes in her statement that rural women are finely tuned to the economic mood of their community she should recognise their concern and fight hard for additional road funding. Senator Reynolds will be failing in her responsibilities as a Minister, both for local government and the status of women, if she cannot get a better deal for these communities than that which is presently before the Government. Her credibility would fall to an all-time low. To illustrate this Government's further neglect of the ordinary men and women of Australia we need only to look at the effect of the cuts in road funding for one small shire. I will not name that shire in case it causes it some embarrassment. Since 1985 its local road funding has been cut in real terms by 25 per cent. As a consequence, it has lost eight employees and has experienced a rate increase of 22 per cent. The general impact on the local community was further unemployment and a substantial decline in the standard of road conditions which diminished the economic benefits that flow from better roads and decreased road safety standards. If local road funding were cut altogether a further five employees would be lost as a direct result. There would be another rate increase and a negative impact on the community generally. This is just one small example which would be mirrored throughout Australia if the Federal Government refused to maintain its commitment to Australia's road system. This example is all the more appropriate because it is from a shire already severely hit by the Federal Government in terms of employment, income, economic growth and development. It is located in the World Heritage affected areas of north Queensland. It is no wonder then that the shire is reeling from the effects of what could be described as a double barrelled shotgun held to its head. The Government must take note of the warnings it has received in the recent State by-elections and council elections and get back in touch with ordinary Australians. It must know that it is political suicide to ignore the voters any longer. I hope that the Government will see the light and reconsider these drastic proposals for road funding. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(10.49) —I will not delay the Senate for very long tonight. Honourable senators may remember that, at the end of last session or at the beginning of this session-I do not quite remember-I spoke during the adjournment debate about the point at which one pays provisional tax. I pointed out that, if one received $999 of unearned income, made up of interest, dividends, et cetera, one was liable to pay provisional tax. As far as I remember, that level was set in 1981 and it has not been reviewed since. I do not remember what the average weekly wage was in 1981. The Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, who is in the chamber, would probably have a better idea about that. However, the figure is probably twice as much now. But the starting point for provisional tax has never been lifted. I also pointed out at the time that there was a strong revolt on the part of people who got caught up in provisional tax. I think I mentioned the figure of 350,000 pensioners alone, although I would not like to be held to that figure because it seems rather high. However, I read in a newspaper-the West Australian of yesterday, I think-that the Government is now looking at increasing the limit for pensioners in the May mini-Budget or statement, or whatever it is called. I congratulate the Government on considering the matter-if it does something about it for pensioners. If the Government lifts the limit for pensioners but not anyone else, however, it will be discriminatory because, at the other end of the scale, young people trying to save for a deposit on their first home are finding that provisional tax is being imposed on them. If one gets 12 1/2 per cent interest on one's investment, $8,000 will attract $1,000 interest for the year, which puts one over the limit. Normally, a couple saving for a deposit for their first house would be looking at a little more than that-say, $10,000 to $12,000 each, to give a $25,000 deposit. So, at the other end of the scale they, too, get caught up. I should like the Government to bear that matter in mind in its deliberations leading up to the May mini-Budget or statement. I mention another matter as regards provisional tax. In Perth, at least, there is a vast amount of trouble with the Australian Taxation Office computer. We have now been on quarterly payments of provisional tax for a couple of years or thereabouts; we are coming to the end of the first full year of provisional tax. For those who pay provisional tax, especially those in business, 31 March is the date on which the Taxation Office is squared off-and that date is just around the corner. I have been lobbied by the accounting profession in Western Australia because there seem to be many assessments coming out now that have not been credited for the provisional tax that has been paid already in the quarterly payments. When one explains this to the Taxation Office, one is told, `Yes, that may be so. We do not know. The computer has broken down and given us trouble'. One then says, `What do we do?' The Taxation Office says, `You had better pay the amount on your assessment as it stands, otherwise there could be penalties. Your money will be refunded'. The money will be refunded no doubt, with no interest, and one does not know when-perhaps 12 months down the track. I should like the Minister to take up that point with his colleagues to see whether it can be sorted out, preferably before 31 March. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(10.54) —Four senators have spoken in this adjournment debate-Senators Newman, Reid, Boswell and Panizza. All of them are Opposition senators, and all of them have raised questions which are directed to the Government or relevant Ministers. Obviously I shall draw those questions to the attention of the relevant Ministers and those Ministers will reply as they consider appropriate in due course. However, I should like to comment on some of the speeches that have been delivered. I shall draw Senator Newman's remarks about the veterans's medal for the Vietnam campaign to the attention of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and give a side notice of that to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Humphreys, because obviously the matter is in their domain and they may wish to vary any remarks or reaffirm the remarks they have made in the past. Senator Newman referred to the debate in the Senate this afternoon on the Flags Amendment Bill 1987. One of my most striking memories of this type of debate in Australia is of 1984 during the Los Angeles Olympic Games, when I drove down William Street in Perth and saw on kerbside billboards the legend `They're playing our song'. That is all it said. We all knew that it signified that the South Australian cycle team had won a gold medal at the Olympic Games and that Glynis Nunn had won her event at the Olympic Games. All that was necessary was to say `They're playing our song'. We knew that that was not God Save the Queen. We knew that it was Australia's own song, Advance Australia Fair. It is not surprising to me that Australians have come to love and value that as the symbol of Australia in terms of music and lyric, and that that has overtaken and replaced God Save the Queen. I am one of those who hope that one day a flag will fly from our flagpoles which is uniquely Australian and is not embroidered with the symbol of another country. However, having stated my own view, let me say that it is true that the Government has no intention of changing the flag. It is not planning to do such. This sort of Bill and the sorts of speeches that we have heard are aimed at whipping up an event that is not real and trying to generate some nationalistic fervour based on misconception. In one of Senator Reid's indefatigable issues from the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), she raised the question of the carpet in the new Parliament House. She did not quite carpet the Government in what she said, but she said that there was anxiety and interest on the part of citizens of the ACT about what might happen to the offcuts from carpet found to be flawed in the new Parliament House. I have nothing to say about that other than what I have read in the Press. I shall refer that matter on in case the relevant Minister wishes to comment on it. My understanding is that the carpet laid in the new House of Representatives chamber is of a uniquely Australian eucalyptus green shading and is designed especially for the House of Representatives chamber. My understanding is that before the carpet was laid it was not checked by the manufacturer or the agent and that, upon its being laid, flaws were detected in various parts, not the least of which was a section directly in front of where the Prime Minister would sit. I recall cartoons stressing that Bob Hawke would sit there and portraying a frayed piece of carpet in front of him. That was the new Parliament House. What is reassuring about those cartoons for the Government is that they presumed that Bob Hawke would remain the Prime Minister. That is a presumption that I, too, make. Senator Newman —Only for a little while. Senator COOK —I think that that interjection is wrong and that the people of Australia are more sensible than it suggests. But presuming that one day there may be a change and perhaps the Prime Minister may be John Elliott, Andrew Peacock, or Fred Chaney II, or Fred Chaney III or Fred Chaney IV, or maybe Fred Chaney X, I can obviously see the point of Senator Reid's concerns. My understanding is that the section of the carpet that is flawed is to be taken up and that the manufacturer has agreed to take it back and replace it without cost. What then will happen to the offcuts, which are owned by the manufacturer, is up to the manufacturer. I emphasise that that is my understanding. If it is incorrect, obviously it will be corrected. There is nothing much that I want to say about Senator Boswell's contribution, because again, in the tradition of the National Party, he put out his hand for some more money. We are used to that. It is particularly rampant in Queensland. It is not surprising, though, that he omitted to mention a number of matters, such as the tax applied by the Queensland Government on rail freights. In my own portfolio area, all the mining companies in Queensland continually complain about the indirect tax that is screwed out of them by the Queensland Government's overcharging in terms of rail transport, but there seems to be no intent on the part of any Queensland parliamentary representative to suggest to the State Government that it might attend to its road programs by diverting some of those funds. Again tonight Senator Boswell did not do that. I think it is unnecessary for me to say, but I do put on the record that the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) is performing an excellent job in that role. Any criticism of her is not justified. The Government is sensitive to the need for both rural and metropolitan roads. It is not fair to make the assertions that have been made. Senator Panizza raised the question of a cap on earnings for provisional tax. I shall draw those remarks to the attention of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I do not know, but the business tax review may cover that or, as Senator Panizza mentioned, the May economic statement may cover it. Nonetheless, if the Government has a reply to make on the issues that Senator Panizza raised, it will do so. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.01 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Statement No. 2 of 1988-List of names and addresses of Waterfront Industry Establishments for Inter-state Commission and Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Order 1988 No. 2-Export Control (Fish) as amended (Amendment), dated 14 March 1988. Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations-Orders 1988- No. 1-Meat Inspection (Victoria), dated 17 March 1988. No. 2-Meat Inspection (General) as amended (Amendment), dated 17 March 1988. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 77) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: (1) What studies, if any, have been made by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy or any other Federal Department into the effects that the use of agricultural chemicals on the mainland have had on the Great Barrier Reef and its surrounds. (2) What have been the major findings of such studies. (3) What long term effect has the use of pesticides on the mainland had on the Great Barrier Reef and its surrounds. (4) What long term effect has the use of insecticides on the mainland had on the Great Barrier Reef and its surrounds. (5) To what extent have trace residues of pesticides been found in the Great Barrier Reef area. (6) To what extent have trace residues of insecticides been found in the Great Barrier Reef. Senator Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Primary Industries and Energy has no current studies into the effects that the use of agricultural chemicals on the mainland have had on the Great Barrier Reef and its surrounds however the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is funding three studies that relate to the use of agricultural chemicals in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) Region. The studies are to:- (a) determine use of agricultural chemicals in the North Queensland (James Cook University); (b) determine anthropogenic influences, including pollutants in the Cairns area of the Marine Park (University of Melbourne); (c) determine whether nitrates and phosphates used in agriculture on the mainland are reaching the Barrier Reef and are affecting growth of coral or contributing to outbreaks of Crown of Thorns Starfish (James Cook University). The GBRMPA sponsored a workshop on `Contaminants in Waters of the Great Barrier Reef' in May 1984. The workshop focussed on a range of contaminants including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other organochlorines. In addition GBRMPA sponsored a workshop in late November 1987 to discuss the impact of nitrates and phosphates in the Marine Park and the need for monitoring (early indicators from study (c) mentioned above were discussed). The Workshop agreed that this topic should be investigated further at specific sites where considerable human activity impinges on the Marine Park environment. The Proceedings of the Workshop will be published and should be available during 1988. (2) The studies listed in the answer to (1) began in early 1987 and will be of one to three years duration. Consequently, the results are not available at this stage. However the Contaminants Workshop found that the measured levels of most chemical contaminants were so low as to be almost undetectable and concluded that sediments and nutrients are likely to be of greater concern. (3) and (4) The long term effect of the use of pesticides and insecticides is unknown. On the basis of limited sampling, the Contaminants Workshop concluded that at the time the effects of these contaminants were low, however, the use of organochlorine pesticides in farming was identified as an area requiring further attention. (5) and (6) Traces of pesticides and insecticides have been found in the GBR Region and the results of various studies were summarized at the Contaminants Workshop. PCBs and organochlorines have been detected. In one study (1984) PCBs were detected in the flesh of a wide range of reef organisms, and concentrations were, except for sharks, similar or less than those measured for organisms in non-polluted northern hemisphere environments. The higher concentrations in sharks may be indicative of bioaccumulation in carnivores that are at the top of the food chain. It is hoped that the above new studies will provide further information on this matter.