Wednesday, 13 April 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. that the public is overwhelmingly opposed to Telecom's plans to introduce time charges for local calls; 2. that while Telecom remains a public enterprise, it must be accountable to the public, its owners; and 3. while Telecom retains a statutory monopoly which shields it from the discipline of competition, it should not be unilaterally allowed to impose extortionate charges upon the public. Your petitioners therefore respectfully call upon all members of the Senate in Parliament assembled to take action to prevent Telecom introducing time charges for local calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the introduction of time-charging for local telephone calls by Telecom Australia would seriously disadvantage thousands of elderly and disabled people and families, and would add a further burden to the already prohibitive cost of living borne by every Australian. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject any plans by Telecom to time-charge local telephone calls. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we oppose timed local calls by Telecom. (2) Timed calls should not be introduced in the absence of widespread community support. (3) Timed calls will seriously affect pensioners, the elderly, low income earners and other disadvantaged groups. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner(from 53 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That although elector-initiated referendums are conducted successfully in such countries as Switzerland and the U.S.A., no such facility exists for Australian citizens. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Initiate the necessary action for a referendum to be held to amend the Constitution to provide for such an initiative on the following conditions: If a specified percentage of voters (such as 2%) sign a petition asking that a referendum be held on a certain question the Federal Government would be obliged to hold that referendum and the result would become law. And your petitioners further humbly pray that the referendum be timed to coincide with the referendum to be held to extend the term of office of the House of Representatives from 3 to 4 years. And we humbly pray that you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 318 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. the right of the people of a country to make law independent of politicians should be a basic and independent right; 2. consequently there is an urgent need for constitutional reforms. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: support the Constitutional Alteration (Electors Initiative) 1987 Bill to alter the constitution so as to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned express concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-86 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 433 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 10 citizens), Childs (from 1,935 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 434 citizens), Giles (from 202 citizens), Maguire (from 120 citizens) and Tate (from 321 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, being concerned that the Australian Government, in breach of its own stated policies, has lifted the bans on the sale of uranium to France; demand that the Government re-impose the bans on such sales, and further, that the Government ratifies and strengthens the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty to prohibit uranium sales within the region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 112 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to reject any proposal or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your humble petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 209 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned. (i) are alarmed that many sporting, cultural and community groups have been made to feel that they can attract sponsorship only from promoters of unhealthy products; (ii) call for a National Health Promotion Foundation to be established through an increase in tobacco excise of 10 cents per packet; and (iii) urge that the National Health Promotion Foundation provide national sporting, cultural and community groups with alternative sponsorship funding so that these groups can flourish without the taint of accepting money from tobacco companies and assisting in the promotion of their unhealthy products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jenkins (from 140 citizens) and Reid (from 100 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Short (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are concerned that the Judeo-Christian moral values which have been fundamental in our laws and education systems since the foundation of the country are now being undermined in the current practice of law making, and we are concerned that the values of the secular-humanistic philosophy have taken their place therefore jeopardizing the moral climate of our society and contributing towards immorality and violence in our society. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate for the restoration of Judeo-Christian laws and moral values. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 103 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, Express concern over the further delay until 28 April 1988 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material. Call upon the Senate to request the Government as an urgent interim measure to immediately adopt the recommendations and respond positively to the observations of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material by: ensuring that all videos currently on the market which contain a level of violence beyond the current Film Censorship Board guidelines be withdrawn from sale or hire; placing a moratorium on the sale and hire of X-rated videos; promulgating regulations to prevent the transmission by post from Canberra of videos which are banned in the States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 125 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the Senate the proposed closure of Scullin Primary School. We consider it totally unacceptable that the community should be deprived of its traditional-style, viable, neighbourhood school. The building is at ground level and educationally suitable. To attend alternative schools would impose lengthy, unsafe journeys on many young children. The open space surrounding the school is constantly used for organised sport and as a play space. The closure of such a suburban focal-point would adversely affect our community. We therefore request that the Senate persuade the Government to abandon the proposal to close Scullin Primary School. by Senator Reid (from 1,791 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of the undersigned members of the War Veterans' community and concerned citizens respectfully showeth: That there has been continuous, substantial and damaging erosion of war veterans' benefits and services since May of 1985 in a very wide range of areas; That it is cruel and cynical of the Government to treat war veterans, many of whom are now advanced in age, in declining health and vulnerable, as expendable and unworthy of optimum care and benefits, when they and their comrades gave of their utmost to this country in its times of greatest need; Now, therefore your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled pass appropriate legislation to reverse the decisions of the Government which have brought about the erosion of war veterans' benefits and services. by Senator Jenkins (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That the Constitution of the Commonwealth has served Australia well, is not out of date, has proved to be flexible and should not be radically altered. 2. Our deep concern that the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees which propose radical changes to the Constitution are threatening to reduce our rights as citizens of the Commonwealth. 3. Our strongest opposition to any referendum proposals of the Hawke Government which gives more power to the Government and less to the people and which concentrates that power in Canberra at the expense of the States and weakens the role of the Senate. by Senator Durack (from 68 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament The petition of the undersigned shows: Our deepest concern at the plight of Mordechai Vanunu, who revealed details of the nuclear weapons arsenal of Israel; Our belief that Vanunu's actions were a service to humanity-including to the people of Israel-and were in fulfilment of his duty under international law; Our belief that the unlawful abduction of Vanunu from Rome, his imprisonment since then, his prison conditions, and his conviction on charges of espionage and treason are denials of his fundamental human rights. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Resolve to ask the Australian Government to appeal to the Government of Israel to release Mordechai Vanunu immediately and without conditions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 189 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Port Pirie Education Centre Inc. has for twelve years fulfilled a wide range of educational needs among underprivileged and isolated rural people in the upper north of South Australia; that the Federal Government's withdrawal of base grant funding will in effect cause the Centre to close at the end of 1987: that Federal Government managerial incompetence is evident in deciding to cause the closure of the Centre at the same time as approving a Community Employment Program grant of approximately $50,000 to upgrade the Centre's grounds. Your petitioners therefore pray: that the Federal Government will restore base grant funding for 1988 and beyond to ensure that the Port Pirie Education Centre Inc. can continue to provide its wide range of educational services to the people of the upper north of South Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chapman (from 258 citizens). Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, from 15 petitioners praying that the lease of the joint Australian-United States defence space research facility at Pine Gap be terminated: We the undersigned ask that the Federal Government advise the United States of America that the Agreement for a base at Pine Gap be terminated by October 1986. We believe that for the sake of peace and the good of the Australian people the Agreement should be terminated and the Base closed because Pine Gap is base used for military and espionage purposes: Since the beginning of its operations in 1969 the base has been used for the monitoring of telephone and teletype communications in Australia. Information gathered in this way has been used by the CIA all over the world, much of it can be linked to the overthrow of governments in other countries. Last year it was discovered that the base at Pine Gap was spying on Greece. The electronic and pictorial information which the base's satellites collect is used to determine nuclear targets on Soviet and allied soil. Many military activities of the USA approach the verge of nuclear war, they are also co-ordinated from Pine Gap. The war in Vietnam and the US invasion of Lebanon in 1984 are amongst such activities. Pine Gap devotes only a very small percentage of its time to monitoring of the arms control implementation agreement and the information gathered at such times is so secret that Australia has absolutely no access to it. The role of Pine Gap will be enlarged according to Reagan's Star Wars plans, which will transfer the arms race into space, threatening the existence of our planet. Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act 1942, and for related purposes. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That Senators Foreman and McKiernan be granted leave of absence for the period from 12 April to 29 April 1988 inclusive, on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That Senator Sheil be granted leave of absence for the period from 12 April to 29 April 1988 inclusive, on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the widespread alarm in the nursing home community that has arisen as a direct result of the Federal Government's so-called aged care policy; (b) observes that the quality of nursing home care in South Australia could seriously be jeopardised if the Government continues to ignore the need for a more flexible policy stance in this area; (c) further notes the claims of people directly involved with the provision of care to the aged in our community that the Government's policy changes will result in a substantial loss of jobs in nursing homes across South Australia, which will mean declining living standards for many nursing home residents; and (d) calls upon the Government to put a halt to the proposed changes and conduct a trial of the new funding arrangements in the one government owned and operated nursing home in Australia in order to test the adequacy of its proposed new funding levels. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, when next an Order of the Day for the resumption of debate on a motion moved by a Minister for the second reading of a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution is called on, the General Business Order of the Day relating to the consideration of the Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987 shall be called on at the same time, that Bill shall be considered together with the Government Bill at every stage, and the questions for the remaining stages of the passage of the Bills shall be put separately in respect of each Bill. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —On behalf of Senator McMullan, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: (1) That the paper entitled The Canberra Leasehold System prepared by Professor Max Neutze at the request of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure for investigation and report. (2) That the Standing Committee when considering this matter be empowered to sit as a joint committee with the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives when that Committee is considering this matter, under the same provisions as the joint committee empowered by resolution of the Senate of 3 November 1987, concurred in by the House of Representatives on 5 November 1987, to examine proposed variations to the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra. (3) That nothing in paragraph (2) be taken to affect the power of the Senate Committee to consider the matter referred to in paragraph (1) or its duty to report to the Senate on this matter. (4) That this resolution be communicated by message to the House of Representatives requesting the concurrence of that House in paragraph (2). Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that sales tax, which is Australia's main consumption tax, is growing faster under the Hawke Government than any other of its record breaking taxes; (b) notes that so far this financial year, sales tax collections have risen by 18 per cent or three times faster than its forecast inflation rate and even faster than the huge 14.5 per cent rise in income tax; (c) notes that since the Hawke Government came into office this particular consumption tax has had a record increase of 110 per cent to a yearly rate of $7.5 billion in the 1987-88 financial year; (d) notes that this rise in sales tax represents almost three times the rate of inflation and double the increase in Australian wages, salaries and other benefits under the Hawke Government; (e) notes that this secret agenda of record rises in sales tax and other consumption taxes by the Hawke Government has been accompanied by record rises in income tax; and (f) recognises the need for reform of the Hawke Government's unfair and discriminatory consumption taxes which hit ice cream but exclude pornographic magazines and which tax orange juice but not $1,000 ball gowns. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates Tasmanian and world-famous axeman, David Foster, on his recent success in being named Axeman of the Decade at the Royal Easter Show; (b) notes the unprecedented record in woodchopping of David Foster, whose career highlights include not only this recent honour but, since 1976, 85 world titles, the captaining of Australia twice and, in partnership with his father, 6 consecutive double-handed sawing championships at the Sydney Show; and (c) acknowledges that, including this outstanding personal record of David Foster, Tasmanian axemen in general have led competitive woodchopping for the past 50 years, which is a fitting testimony to their skill and endeavour. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-sub-section 30 (3) of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1977. 2. Australian Capital Territory Health Authority-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 63c of the Audit Act 1901. 3. Australian Institute of Family Studies-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 114n of the Family Law Act 1975 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. 4. Joint Coal Board-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-sub-section 20 (3) of the Coal Industry Act 1946. 5. Australian Agricultural Council-Resolutions of the 129th Meeting, Fremantle, 5 February 1988. 6. Treaties-(a) eight which have been signed by Australia and which require further treaty action by Australia before the treaty can enter into force; (b) ten to which Australia has become a party by signature; (c) three which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded; and (d) one which has been ratified by Australia. 7. Honey Research Council-Annual Report 1986-87-sub-section 30 (5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 8. Pig Research Council-Annual Report 1986-87-sub-section 30 (5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 9. Oilseeds Research Council-Annual Report 1986-87-sub-section 30 (5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 10. Mackay/Capricorn Section Zoning Plan-section 33 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. 11. Fishing Industry Research Committee-Annual Report 1986-87-section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969. 12. Operation of the Fishing Industry Act 1956-Annual Report 1986-87-section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956. 13. Wheat Research Council-Annual Report 1986-87-sub-section 30 (5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 14. Australian Special Rural Research Council-Annual Report 1986-87-sub-section 30 (5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 15. Australian Industry and Technology Council-Annual Summary of Proceedings 1986-87. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, the Order of Business on Thursday, 14 April 1988, be as follows: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Ministerial Statements, by leave (4) Discovery of Formal Business (5) Placing of Business (6) Questions (7) Adjournment. Motion (by Senator Macklin)-by leave-proposed: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, where a Bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the House of Representatives, after 24 May 1988, and a motion is moved for the second reading of the Bill, debate on that motion shall be taken to be adjourned upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate shall be made an Order of the Day for the first day of sitting in August 1988, without any question being put. (2) That, immediately after debate on a motion for the second reading of a Bill is adjourned in accordance with paragraph (1), or following the giving of notices on a subsequent day, a motion may be moved without notice to refer that Bill to a standing committee for inquiry and report by a day not later than the first day of sitting in August 1988. (3) That this Order cease to have effect at the commencement of the first day of sitting in August 1988. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.11) —I was not given any notice of this matter and I have just been handed a copy of the motion. Senator Robert Ray —Notice was given a couple of weeks ago. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, it was in the Notice Paper yesterday, but that Notice Paper is not on the desk today. I admit that there are some difficulties at the moment because of the absence of the Government Whip. I say cheerio to him, if he is silly enough to be listening. I am trying to read this motion quickly. It is the cut off motion that `unless otherwise ordered, where a Bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the House of Representatives, after 24 May 1988, and a motion is moved for the second reading of the Bill', the Bill will go over to the next session, which is in August. I notice from reading the Press this morning that a series of Bills relating to the referenda is to be brought into the chamber, presumably, some time after the middle of May. I also read in the Press this morning, and it has not been notified to this chamber, that there is to be a special meeting of the House of Representatives at least on 10 May for the purpose of considering a series of referendum proposals. The Press also indicates that those referendum proposals are expected to pass the Senate by late June. At the moment, according to the information that I have, the Senate is not scheduled to sit later than the first week in June. I would have thought that, if the Government really desired to see a successful referendum or successful referenda take place, it would give sufficient time for the Senate to consider these very important issues. However, it appears that it is not going to give the Senate and, particularly, the House of Representatives sufficient time to consider what it believes to be major questions of public policy relating to the Constitution in this bicentennial year. I read in this morning's Press that some of the referendum proposals will relate to such questions as the entrenching into the Constitution of certain freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of religion and the right to trial by jury. As will be recalled from what happened when the Bill of Rights was before the chamber, there are not only nuances in respect of freedom of expression to be considered but also real issues to be determined as to precisely what that means. One only needs to go back and dust the covers of the debates on the Bill of Rights to see that the Government was not sure what it meant by the words that it proposed to have inserted into the Bill of Rights. It did not even know what they meant when it came to the question of freedom of expression, freedom of speech. I hope that it has got its act together now, because it can be guaranteed that there will be a very substantial debate in the chamber and it will require far more time than the time which will be allowed after we receive the Bills from the House of Representatives, presuming that they are passed by the House of Representatives. It would, therefore, be unlikely that we would receive the Bills in this chamber until 24 or 25 May, and we would then have a period of only five or six days to consider the Bills. Senator Walters —They will gag them through. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Walters says that the Government will gag them through. How will it do that, Senator Walters? Senator Walters —They have the Democrats supporting them. They supported them last time. Senator HARRADINE —I hope that on a very serious matter such as this the Australian Democrats certainly would not gag or guillotine that sort of debate. In respect of those referendum Bills, I am wondering whether there should not be an amendment which would require the Government to introduce those Bills prior to 24 May so as to enable the chamber to give full consideration to them. Of course, the Government needs to have these referenda Bills through both chambers of Parliament before we rise for the winter recess, otherwise it cannot have the referenda in September when it desires to have the referenda because of the constitutional formalities concerned. I guess that the Government knows what I am talking about and I assume that most other honourable senators know what I am talking about. So if the Government does not get the Bills through before the winter recess, it cannot really, in effect, have referenda in September. The Government is all geared up to have the referenda in September. It is the Government's right to be geared up for that, but let me say to the Government that I, for one, will be making sure that the matters that are proposed for referenda are subject to the minutest scrutiny by this chamber. I believe that this proposal as it currently stands will not give us sufficient time to deal with those matters before the winter recess. If the Australian Democrats, the Opposition and the Government agree, I believe that it would be best to adjourn the debate on this motion until the next day of sitting so as to give consideration to the matters that I have raised. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.19) —It is not appropriate for me to speak to this motion, by earlier agreement, but I just want to clarify some matters that Senator Harradine has raised. First of all, just on the procedures this morning, it was my understanding that the Acting Government Whip, Senator Maguire, was in the process of telling those attending the meeting about these arrangements when that meeting was interrupted inadvertently. There was a disposition to fully brief them, so it should not have come as any surprise. Moreover, it is the arrangement, as I understand it, that one of Senator Harradine's staff attends these Whips meetings when these arrangements are made. Certainly there is no disposition to create any barriers to procedural communications. On the more substantial issue of time available for debating the referendum proposal, the intended timetable is essentially as follows: That the Bills be introduced in the special sitting of the House of Representatives on 10 May; that they be debated in the House of Representatives about a week later-on 17 May; that they come into the Senate that week; and that they commence being debated in this place about 23 May. So that timetable is within the parameters of Senator Macklin's motion. I hasten to add that I believe that the Australian Democrats would not be uncooperative were that timetable to be disrupted for any reason. Indeed, it is on the assumption of sensible cooperation about matters of major moment, quite apart from the fact that the Government would be beaten anyway, that the Government is accepting this essentially formal motion without a squeak. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.21) —In light of the comment that has been made, I think I should make the Opposition's position clear. In the past we have supported and again today we will support the placing of some time limit on the introduction of fresh legislation that will be dealt with in this session. We think that is in the interests of orderly consideration of legislation. Senator Robert Ray —If you win government will you do the same? Senator CHANEY —In response to Senator Ray's interjection in which he asks whether we would do the same in government, it has been a matter of lament for me both in government and in opposition that, for whatever reason, there appears to be this propensity to produce legislation late in the session. I do not approve of it and I think it cheapens the parliamentary pro- cess and often makes it rather meaningless. I have little doubt that when we are in government, given the way in which the Senate has been reconstructed, we are likely to face exactly the same restrictions. It would be very odd if we did not. I turn to the concerns that have been expressed by Senator Harradine. This motion in no way sets the limits of what would be required by the Opposition in terms of allowing proper debate. All that this motion does is to say that Bills introduced after a certain date, in the absence of some agreement from the Senate to the contrary, will stand adjourned to the next session. That does not mean that the Opposition would in any way go along with, consent to or cooperate with a foreshortening of debate on essential and major matters such as proposals for constitutional change. Just as the Opposition has sought the fullest possible debate on major questions such as the introduction of the identification card, the Bill of Rights Bill and so on, we would see a major debate being involved in proposals to change the Australian Constitution, not least if those changes affect the role and function of this chamber; and there has been some suggestion that they will. I simply wish to give Senator Harradine an assurance that the sorts of concerns that he expresses are no different from the concerns held by the Opposition that there should be very full debate on these matters. I hope that the whole of the Senate will be united in that view. Often we have seen detailed and contentious legislation dealt with in the House of Representatives in the space of less than a sitting day. That legislation has then been debated for days in the Senate, I think to very good effect. I suppose the simplest and most recent example of that is the Bill of Rights Bill. There was a substantial debate in this place on that Bill which enabled the public to catch up with the debate and to register its concern about a proposal which would have made a very substantial difference to the structure of government in this country. We are all in the position where we do not know what the Government will select from the smorgasbord of constitutional change that has been put forward by the Constitutional Commission. The Opposition has expressed its concern that under the guise of obtaining what might be regarded as popular and widely supported measures, such as the increase in the parliamentary term to four years for the House of Representatives, the Government might produce fundamental structural changes which reduce the Senate to some sort of poor man's House of Lords. I can give the Senate an absolute assurance that all of those proposals will receive the greatest scrutiny from the Opposition. We will fight very hard to ensure that there is proper parliamentary debate as a prelude to any possible referendum, because that debate will be an important part of informing the public of the true implications of what is being put forward. In this area the Australian Democrats will have a significant role to play, particularly if there are elements of the proposals that they as a party support. I hope that they accept that there may well be a need for a substantial debate to take place in the Senate if we are to ensure that there is broad public understanding of the issues. I hope that they will not join with the Government in foreshortening the constitutional processes, foreshortening the debate and enabling these things to be shoved on to an unsuspecting public. I do not know what proportion of Australians read booklets that they receive on constitutional change. I suspect that the majority of them do not. Therefore, I believe that the opportunities for debate in this place are critically important to the public's understanding, and indeed the media's understanding, of issues that are raised by constitutional amendment. Though I do not believe there is any need, I would be interested in any specific amendment that Senator Harradine might like to move with respect to constitutional changes. However, I doubt that we could cover an amendment by any particular resolution. In the end the actual resolution of honourable senators will be required to ensure that the Government does not rush through major provisions. I hope the Opposition will have cooperation. In light of what Senator Harradine has said I know we will have his support. I hope that we will have the cooperation of other honourable senators to make sure that that line is held. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I table explanatory notes for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs relating to additional estimates of expenditure for 1987-88. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.26) —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- Mr President, this Bill contains amendments to the National Crime Authority Act 1984 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. The amendments to the National Crime Authority Act 1984 are in Part II of the Bill. The primary purpose of the amendments to the National Crime Authority Act is to repeal s. 63, the sunset clause. This will ensure the Authority's continued existence beyond 30 June 1989 and meets a commitment made as part of the Government's election platform. The decision to continue the Authority beyond 30 June 1989 is a recognition of the valuable and innovative role which the Authority has played thus far in the fight against organised crime. In the last 4 years, the Authority has demonstrated the effectiveness of the task force approach in this fight. This approach uses teams of highly skilled lawyers, accountants and police investigators endowed with special powers beyond those available to police. The impact of the NCA has been felt in the areas of drug trafficking, white collar crime and the corruption of public officials. The other critical aspect of the NCA's operations is the support it enjoys from all States and the Northern Territory which participate in the Inter-Governmental Committee on the National Crime Authority chaired by the Commonwealth. As well as references from the Commonwealth, the Authority currently has one or more references from five States and the Northern Territory. The Government's intention to repeal the sunset clause was communicated to the State and Northern Territory Ministerial representatives at the last meeting of the Inter-Governmental Committee on the NCA, who expressed their continued support for the Authority and noted the need to amend their own Governments' underpinning legislation. Clause 4 incorporates some related and consequential amendments to the terms of office of the Chairman and members of the Authority. The Government is proposing to recommend to the Governor-General that the present Chairman of the Authority, Mr Justice Stewart, be re-appointed for a period of one year from the date of the expiration of his present term of office i.e. 30 June 1988. The Government considers that the Authority will clearly benefit from continuity of leadership and direction in the period of adjustment and consolidation following the repeal of the sunset clause. Accordingly, the Government sought Mr Justice Stewart's agreement to an extension of his term of appointment. Mr Justice Stewart has agreed to the proposed re-appointment on the basis that the extension would be for one year only. In proposing the re-appointment, the Government is conscious of the importance of the contribution made by Mr Justice Stewart to the Authority's establishment and work thus far. It looks to him to set the Authority on a solid foundation now that its future is assured. At the same time, the Government believes that, as a general principle, the existing four year limitation on the term of appointment of members of the Authority and the prohibition on the re-appointment of members should be retained. Consequently, clause 4 contains transitional provisions which specifically provide for the re-appointment of Mr Justice Stewart for one year only. These provisions also enable the re-appointment of the other two members of the Authority beyond the date of effect of the sunset clause when their terms of appointment under the Principal Act were to expire, provided that their total term of appointment does not exceed four years from the date of their initial appointment. This provision will similarly provide a level of continuity of experience and direction for the Authority. Clause 4 contains a further amendment which makes clear that appointments of less than four years are possible. This introduces the necessary flexibility into the Act to accommodate the possibility that a person suitably qualified to be appointed as a member may not be in a position to accept a four year term of appointment. Part III of the Bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. There are two substantive amendments contained in Part III. At the request of Judges of the Federal Court, an amendment is to be made to section 6d, which deals with eligible judges under the Act. The amendment will ensure that eligible judges, in the performance of a function or power conferred on an eligible judge by the Principal Act, have the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court has in relation to proceedings in the High Court. This will replace a more limited protection now provided by the sub-section and will give eligible judges the same protection they have when sitting as judges. The other main amendment will require the Commissioner of the AFP to keep certified copies of warrants, and of instruments revoking warrants, issued under Part IV of the Principal Act. (These warrants authorise the interception of telegrams). The purpose of the amendment is to remove an apparent incompatibility in provisions dealing with the manner in which these warrants are handled. The amendments will make it clear that Part IV warrants and instruments of revocation are to be delivered to the Managing Director of Telecom, with the AFP retaining a certified copy. Two other minor drafting amendments are also made to the Principal Act. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 25 March. Clause 63 (Confidentiality). Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.27) —The Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill 1988 does not implement the Government's plan for the textiles, clothing and footwear industries. What it does is establish an authority to implement the Government's plan. The Opposition's viewpoint is that the Authority is not necessary for the implementation of the plan; that the Authority will prove in fact to be an intrusive quango, and that it will impose upon the plan a bureaucracy to which the Opposition is opposed. So, although the Opposition supports the general thrust of the Government's textiles, clothing and footwear plan, it opposes the Bill. The Committee has reached the stage of dealing with clause 63 of the Bill, the confidentiality clause. That clause purports to establish confidentiality of information supplied to the Authority by the industry. However, as I pointed out previously, clause 63 (2) in effect guts clause 63 (1), which imposes a requirement of confidentiality. Subclause 63 (2) provides that the confidentiality provisions do not apply, firstly, for the purposes of this Act or, secondly, as required or permitted by law. The Government has accepted that argument in part in that it has agreed-this is the amendment that has been moved-to delete from proposed subclause (2) the words `for the purposes of this Act; or'. However, subclause (2) will still provide that the confidentiality provisions do not apply to anything done `as required or permitted by law'. As I have pointed out previously, the provision is as wide open as it was previously. Once the Bill becomes law in due course-assuming that the Australian Democrats support the Government in passing this legislation-in effect the confidentiality provisions will not apply to anything done in relation to this Bill. That will gut the confidentiality provisions in subclause (1), and indeed will make the whole of clause 63 meaningless. The coalition parties believe frankly that the Government's amendment is not worthwhile and that the whole of subclause (2) should have been deleted. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(10.32) —If I understand Senator Lewis correctly, he is arguing that the change in the wording suggested in this amendment produces a tautology-in other words, that the phrase `as required or permitted by law' remains in, but the words `for the purposes of this Act' go out. He is arguing that when the Bill becomes law the removal of paragraph (a) does not make a great deal of difference. But if that is the basis of his argument, this amendment is simply a clarification and removes some verbiage. I see therefore no reason why the Democrats should not support this Government amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 64 to 68-by leave-taken together. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.33) —I wish to make a few remarks on clause 66, which gives the Authority very wide powers of delegation and goes to the heart of the question whether there should be an Authority at all. It is to this point that I wish to direct my remarks today as I was unable to participate in the second reading debate. As it is appropriate that my colleague the shadow Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Lewis, be the sole Opposition speaker, if any, on the third reading, I hope that the Chair will grant me a small amount of licence now. I make these comments with Senator Lewis's full support. Senator Button —We will grant you time, not licence. Senator SHORT —I thank Senator Button. The CHAIRMAN —The senator is entitled to 15 minutes. Senator SHORT —I will not take anything like that amount of time. I wish to make my views clear on this Bill for several reasons. In particular, from February 1985 to April 1987 I was chairman of the Opposition's industry, commerce, technology and science committee and in that period my committee and I personally had close and constructive contact and consultations with the industries as they waited for the Hawke Government to develop its plan for the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industries to replace the existing plan which is due to expire at the end of 1988-a plan that was introduced in the first instance by the Fraser Government in 1980 or thereabouts. My committee and I visited many plants, large and small, and met virtually all the leaders of the TCF industries. It is unquestionable that the strong support that the Liberal and National parties gave the TCF industries in their fight for an economically rational but reasonable plan played an important part in the details that the Government finally announced in late 1986 and mid-1987. Senator Button —This is licence rather than time, Senator, I might add. Senator SHORT —I thank the Minister. I notice that he has not deferred from that observation, though. As Senator Chaney, the then shadow Minister, said in late 1986, as the then shadow Minister Senator Messner said in June 1987, as I have said on behalf of the Opposition's industry committee, and as the now shadow Minister, Senator Lewis, said in the second reading debate on this Bill, the Liberal and National parties support the broad thrust of the Government's plan. We are committed to continuing that plan when we win government even though it is painfully clear that the policies of this Labor Government chop and change so much, at great cost to confidence and therefore investment in industry, that we cannot be sure what shape the plan will then actually be in. I want to make it clear that we on this side of the chamber support the TCF industries' legitimate wishes for a stable framework of government policy within which to operate, in which to invest and employ labour and in which it can become increasingly advanced technologically and increasingly efficient. The industries are already highly efficient technically by world standards. There is more that they want to do, and I am sure they can achieve their aims if they are allowed to get on with the job. What we say to the Government and to the industries themselves, however, is this: the establishment of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority will not help the TCF industries to achieve their objectives. On the contrary, it will place another costly bureaucratic roadblock in their path. It will inevitably become increasingly cumbersome and it will inhibit the very changes and restructuring that the industries wish to undertake and which the Government's plan envisages. I say this in the light of the clear and painful experience of the Government's car plan and steel plan. New authorities were established under both of those plans. The evidence is clear, and the industries themselves affirm strongly, that in both instances the operations of the relevant authority have proved disastrous. They have never lived up to the expectations the Government so optimistically set for them when they were established. The TCF industries have told us that they are concerned that if the Authority is not established, the Government may reopen the whole plan, and this would put at risk the safeguard mechanisms in the plan in which the industries place such major store. But there is no logical reason why this should be the case. The Bill before the Senate does not deal with the safeguard mechanism. The mechanism does not need this Authority for its operation. So it would be an act of gross hypocrisy and gross disloyalty to the TCF industries if the Government were to put at risk the safeguard mechanism in the absence of the establishment of the Authority. The TCF industries are understandably very wary of this Government. They have seen it dishonour many of its commitments in the past. I think in particular of the arbitrary slashing of bounties in the 1986 Budget, without any discussion at all with the industries and in clear breach of the spirit of the existing TCF plan. The industries have also been subjected to the never-ending increases in the cost and regulatory burdens placed on industry as a whole by this Government. I am fully aware of the grave concern on the part of the industries that they are facing another arbitrary change to their operating environment in the May mini-Budget, with the prospect of another across the board cut in industry assistance. So it is understandable that the industries are nervous about this Government. But there is no logical reason why a decision not to establish a TCF Authority should place the industries' important safeguard mechanism arrangements at any risk whatsoever. The functions envisaged for the Authority can be carried out more efficiently, with greater expertise, less cost, less duplication and less bureaucracy, under the existing structures of government-including, in particular, within Senator Button's own department-and without the draconian and, one could almost say, totalitarian provisions contained in the Bill. In other words, the Liberal and National parties oppose this Bill not because they wish to place the TCF industries at any additional disadvantage, but, on the contrary, to provide for a more efficient government environment that is conducive to their aspirations and opportunities in the 1990s. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.41) —I will comment briefly on what Senator Short has said. He mentioned the proposed Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority for the industry. He said that everything could happen better without that Authority. I say to Senator Short that the facts destroy his argument. The industry asked for that Authority, but he now says, `We, the Liberal Party in opposition, know better than the industry. We say that there shouldn't be an Authority because things would work better without it'. But the industry asked for it, and the sort of argument he has put forward displays a mixture of patrician attitudes and a misunderstanding of the nature of government administration. What he is now arguing is that, having received some views from certain companies or others in the textile and clothing industry, those companies should be immune from any other economic changes which may take place. All of these matters are put forward as an argument. I wonder whether those matters represent the position of the Liberal Party in reality. Senator Short's speech displayed that there is no conceptual framework for considering some of these issues, particularly with respect to what he said about the nature of the Authority. As I have said publicly-and I say it again here-I am not in favour of wall to wall authorities. I just do not believe in that concept. I know that Senator Short does not believe in it. But there are industries in this country which are very costly to the Australian community and which in the past have been sick industries. Let us take, for example, the textile, clothing and footwear industry. For many of the companies involved it is a highly profitable industry. There are enormous cash flows and a very quick return on investment. What we have to be concerned about with an industry like that is the commitment in the industry to employing people, improving the performance of the industry, improving quality and getting into exports. Senator Short may say that the market will take care of that. He is not in favour of the market taking care of it because in the same argument, by implication, he said that he supported continuation of very high protection levels for this industry. He really has to come to grips-I do not want to patronise him but we are here in a political debate context so I will say what I think-with what he is on about as a member of the Opposition. I will tell Senator Short what I am on about. I will be frank about it. We have a big trade deficit in this country. We are living beyond our means. Senator Short never fails to remind us of that. We have to develop industries in this country which are as good as industries in the rest of the world in terms of their capacity to export, their capacity to trade in the international marketplace and their capacity to deliver quality and satisfactory goods to Australian consumers. What Senator Short wants to do is to nurture them and say that they have to be protected from all those difficult pressures which the rest of the world's industries have to face up to. At the same time he expects them to improve their performance, and so on. This is an enormously difficult industry. Senator Short —I think we are all well aware of that. Senator BUTTON —Yes. I have sat around a table with eight or 10 of the manufacturers in this industry whose personal fortunes run into billions of dollars between them-not millions, but billions. They are very concerned about maintaining levels of protection for their operations. I understand that. Why would they not be concerned? But the Australian consumer has to be considered. The justification for the Authority is that there is a public interest which has to be looked after beyond what the market in a country like this is able to do. That is what it is about. We could debate these issues at length over a period. No doubt we will do so, and I will welcome that. I think we have to be clear about what we are doing. Senator Short has not moved any amendments, so I will not comment further. I am grateful for his contribution because it has given me an opportunity to put my view as to the function of the Authority. Senator Short says that the industry may resent the presence of an Authority and that the functions could be performed by the Department. He knows as well as I do, as an ex-public servant, that if there is anything that industries resent it is not so much authorities but public servants, and the direct organs of government being involved in the day-to-day activities. The Authority will have people who have had direct experience of working in the industry. That is one of the advantages of that course. The cost of these things is not great. If it is translated into Public Service terms we would probably have a line ball situation as to cost. For example, as I said in the Estimates Committee hearing last night, when we established the Automotive Industry Authority-I make no apologies for that as I think it has been highly successful-these sorts of things were said. It is an Authority which I believe has the confidence of the industry, which is much more than the Public Service could achieve. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(10.47) —I wish to raise a couple of points. Firstly, as Senator Button has pointed out, and as I read into the record during the second reading debate, the industry certainly does want this Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority. I read into the record part of a letter from Mr Keith Purcell, who is the Executive Director for the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Council of Australia, in which he certainly raised some objections to the legislation as it was originally framed. Those objections have been substantially answered by the amendments which the Government has moved. The second brief point which I would like to make is that it seems to me that the Opposition has philosophical difficulty over the question of free marketing, or the operation of the market and government control. It seems abundantly evident to the Australian Democrats that we are well beyond the laissez faire stage where the market can simply be left alone and the market somehow will serve the common good, as Adam Smith once said when he described the invisible hand. As I have said before, there is no a priori reason why the operation of competitive greed in a market system should serve the common good. It surprised me that Adam Smith's philosophical view of that situation should have survived for as long as it has. There is abundant evidence that it does not and the market operates towards monopolies very quickly. Of course, we have seen that recently in Australia to a marked extent in a number of areas. One sees the evident failure of this particular industry in some very important respects. I pointed out-and I think this occurred in Senator Cook's second reading speech-that, of the total wool clip, only 5 per cent is processed in Australia. If there is anything that we should be doing by way of competing more successfully industrially it should be adding value to those products that we are already producing in Australia. Yet only 5 per cent of our wool clip is actually processed in Australia. Senator Cook went on to point out that only 10 per cent of our cotton crop and virtually none of our leather and hides are processed and turned into finished goods in Australia. Most of these which are can more than adequately compete with products manufactured elsewhere in the world as regards quality, style and everything else. So it seems to me quite clear that the market simply cannot be left alone. The market system will not serve, and has not served, the best interests of Australia. Clearly the industry itself has recognised this. The industry has called for the Authority and the Government has responded to that and has set up substantially the authority as requested by the industry. That is the reason why the Democrats have supported this legislation. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.51) —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, in his response to my colleague Senator Short, made reference to what this statutory authority will achieve. Let me make it clear that we shall be observing the statutory authority to see whether it does in fact achieve what Senator Button is talking about. I hope it does. I wish it well in its tasks. But I suspect that once again this will be a case in which Senator Button's legislation and the actions of his Government's bodies do not live up to Senator Button's rhetoric. Senator Button's rhetoric is very good. We all acknowledge that much of what he says seems reasonable and plausible. Everyone says, `Isn't that marvellous'. But the problem is that Senator Button's rhetoric is so very frequently not matched by his Government's performance in office. This is another such case. Senator Button also said in his response that the industry wants this authority. Senator Coulter has confirmed that industry leaders want this authority. What the industry leaders in fact wanted was some monitoring body, a body to monitor the plan to ensure that if there was a major reduction in this industry the plan would be deferred or delayed in some way as would be outlined by the Minister so as to halt the reduction in protection for a period. What the industry was seeking was some body, perhaps an authority or perhaps some other body, to monitor it. The Government has acknowledged that. I refer to page 7 of Senator Cook's second reading speech where he says: The establishment of such a body was recommended by the TCF Industry Council. The Council saw the need for a specialised monitoring authority with responsibility for identifying the nature of changes occurring under the plan . . . But in the very next paragraph Senator Cook went on to say that although that might have been what the industry wanted it was not what it was going to get. He said: I see the role of the authority as being broader than that envisaged by the Council. While it will be important to ensure adequate oversighting of the plan, I consider the Authority's major function will be to administer the industries development strategy . . . Earlier, in almost the opening paragraph of his second reading speech, Senator Cook had said that the main function of the Authority would be to implement the industries' development strategy. It may very well be that the industry leaders wanted a monitoring authority; they are getting much more than a monitoring authority. The fourth faction of the Australian Labor Party in this chamber, the Australian Democrats, once again supports the Government in all that it is doing. No doubt Senator Coulter will rise to protect Senator Button from such an attack being made by me by saying that he has a letter here saying that industry leaders want this Authority as it stands at the moment. And they do, because they are scared that if they do not accept the Authority being imposed upon them by this Government the Government will change the plan and all the investments which they have made in this industry since the plan was first announced will be at risk. So the Government is squeezing the industry in this way. The plan has already been changed. Let me explain in which way. In a statement which Senator Button made on 5 June 1987 he said that $27m would be provided to the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) to finance investment in raw material processing projects. If one looks at proposed new section 25 (c) of this Bill one will see that it shows that this will no longer be the case as the Government will be providing finance to AIDC only to cover interest on and the cost of money borrowed by AIDC for investment in raw material processing projects. So there has been a change. As my colleague Senator Short said, these industries are fearful of this Government-not only the textile, clothing and footwear industry but all of these industries. They do not know where they are with this Government because it keeps changing its mind. It does not allow managers in industry to make the necessary long term decisions. Senator Button is supportive of what I am saying. He will use words to say, `Yes, managers need long term propositions so that they can make long term investment decisions'. He knows that is right as I know it is right. But the truth of the matter is that his colleagues, Mr Keating and Mr Dawkins, and his Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, do not listen to him, and they are the ones who might allow him to make these statements out in the community but they are the ones who implement the changes which are so frequently disastrous to industry. I mentioned what proposed new section 25 (c) of this Bill does. It shows that already the plan has been changed since Senator Button announced it on 5 June. The change shows three things: Firstly, it shows that already there have been changes to the plan. Secondly, it shows that the Minister made a statement about the $27m for which he has received wide publicity. Once again, he cannot deliver on the details because the Government will not let him. His senior colleagues will not let him or he is not able to. In this instance I presume that his colleague Senator Walsh, and the Department of Finance, would not let him have the money to finance these important projects. The third thing the change shows is that in the present environment of internal debate about privatisation the Minister could not be seen to be giving the AIDC $27m for investment in the TCF industry sector when the AIDC is generally very strapped for funds and requires a substantial equity injection. This approach of funding only the cost of borrowing will affect AIDC's gearing ratio and perhaps further constrain its ability to raise funds for investments in other sectors. So, as I said, there have been substantial wide-ranging changes as a result of this. Notwithstanding that there appears to be only a minor change in the Bill, in fact there has been a very important change in what the Government is doing. Once again I say that Senator Button's rhetoric, which is all fine and dandy, is in fact not supported by his Government's actions. After all, he is the third most senior Minister in this Government. So he cannot back away as he always endeavours to from the decisions of his Government and say, `It is not my fault. You will have to talk to Mr Keating or Senator Walsh about that'. He is the responsible Minister. Let me turn at this stage to that part of Senator Button's speech a few moments ago when he said that the Opposition parties will have to get their act together on tariff protection and the lowering of tariffs and suggested that, although we talk about lowering tariffs, in fact we support high tariffs. Quite the contrary. The truth of the matter is that we believe in and support a quite significant phased reduction of tariffs after proper consultation with industry. The difference between our policy and the rhe-toric of Senator Button is this: in addition to a phased reduction of tariffs, we believe that it is essential to free up the economic and industrial relations system which this country has; in other words, to deregulate the labour market, to reduce the burden of regulations, to lower corporate and personal taxes and to get the government out of its interference with industry. If this Government were to take those steps, it could lower tariffs much more rapidly than it can at the moment. The present Government takes the easy step of lowering the tariffs. The difficult step is to undo the shackles on industry to enable industry and the economy to take advantage of the lowered tariff protection arrangements. If the Government would, as I said, deregulate the labour market and remove the rigidities from the structure, from the system, which this country has at the moment, at the same time as it reduces protection, then industry and this economy would be able to take advantage of the lowered protectionist regime which Senator Button so frequently talks about. There is one other point which I now come back to, and that is clause 66 of the Bill, rather than answering Senator Button's response to Senator Short. I draw attention to clause 66 and in particular to subclause 1 (b) which, in effect, says that the Authority may by resolution delegate to a member of the staff of the Authority all or any of the Authority's powers under this Act. I ask those industry leaders who are being squeezed by this Government to support this Bill to consider what the consequences of that might be, to consider that the Authority may very well delegate to a member of its staff the power to conduct a detailed inquiry into any particular aspect of the management of any particular business in the textile, clothing and foot-wear industries of Australia. What a significant power that is. Subclause 1 (c) says that if they can get the approval of the Minister they may delegate that power to anyone in Australia, whether he is a member of the staff of the Authority or otherwise. Any person in Australia may be delegated this power to conduct the activities of the Authority, with all of its powers including the very wide powers of investigation. If there is any clause at all by reason of which this Bill ought to be rejected, then by itself clause 63 of the Bill is, in my view, a good enough reason to throw out this legislation, apart from all the other measures that we have referred to during the debate. The CHAIRMAN —Before I let this debate continue I should point out to the Committee that, with the tacit acceptance of the Committee, I permitted Senator Short to open a wide-ranging debate not strictly relevant to clauses 64 to 68. I would like the debate now to be confined to the clauses before the Committee, as all senators have had a chance to speak on the matters raised by Senator Short. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.05) —I wish to use the opportunity afforded by this debate to speak to clauses 64 and 65. The discussion of these clauses effectively concludes the committee stage of the consideration of this Bill. I wish to make an appeal to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) with regard to division 2, which actually contains the provisions for giving certain encouragements to the industry to move into a modernisation phase. This of course is to be applauded. But all this good work is going to be undone if, in the May economic statement, we are going to lose the benefits of accelerated depreciation. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Watson, we are on clauses 64 to 68. How are your remarks relevant to those clauses? Senator WATSON —In the supply of information to the Authority under clause 64 and financial assistance under clause 65. Those comments conclude my remarks. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.06) —I fully appreciate your ruling, Mr Chairman, and I do not want to enter into an expanded debate. Some people do not suffer fools gladly; I do. But I do not suffer misinformation gladly, and I just want to make a couple of comments to correct some points made by Senator Lewis. The CHAIRMAN —I think that in the circumstances I should ask the Committee whether leave is granted. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis said, `Senator Button cannot back away from these things'. I assure him that Senator Button does not want to back away from these things. Let me deal with the points he made. He tried to make two main points. The first was that the industry had asked for a monitoring authority. That, in its view, is an authority to make sure that as far as possible the effects of protection reductions are as limited as they can possibly be. That is what a monitoring authority means to the industry, and I do not blame it for that as it has its own interests to look after. But the honourable senator then sought to make the point that in fact I really have not given it that sort of authority at all, that I have given it an authority that will administer and implement the industry development plan. Sure, I have done that. The alternative would be to have just a monitoring authority and give it the taxpayers' money, which is implicit in the industry development plan, and let it do what it likes with it. Well, this Government is not about that, and I want the honourable senator to be quite clear about that, because we are not in a position to give handouts of taxpayers' money to particular industries and say, `You can do what you like with it, fellers. Take the money; we will keep the box'. That is implicit in the honourable senator's argument. Senator Lewis —Rubbish! Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator can say, `Rubbish!'. His rhetoric is excellent-`rubbish', `crap', all these sorts of interjections. That is all very good! Brilliant rhetoric, Senator, brilliant repartee! But the fact of the matter is that that is what is implicit in his argument. As I said in answer to Senator Short, the industry asked for an authority. It is getting high levels of protection and money for the industry development plan, and it is the responsibility of the Government to see that that money is properly spent, thank you. The second point the honourable senator tried to make, by referring to section 25 of the Act, was that we had backed away from the raw materials processing section of the industry plan. We have not for a moment, as $27m will be there to finance the interest bill of the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) in making loans for raw material development companies of world scale. That will be there. We have not backed away from that at all. I do not know where the honourable senator got that idea from. He, in his role as an Opposition spokesman, can remind me if it is not there. He says that he will watch the Authority. He can watch me too and see whether the money is delivered. It will be delivered because, as Senator Coulter said earlier, we have to do something about the further processing of Australian wool, hides and cotton in this country. But it is no good doing it in Mickey Mouse backyard shows; we have to do it in world class plants. That is what that money is about. But before any money is made available there has to be a report to the Government, which I will be quite happy to make available to Senator Lewis, from consultants about the feasibility of some of these suggested projects. That will be done by, by repute, the best international textile consultants in the world. It is being done now. The report will be available in about a month. Once it is available, the money will be available to the AIDC. I do not know who blew that piece of misinformation into the honourable senator's ear. I warn him: One can walk around the textile, clothing and footwear industry and be given plenty of information about competitors and everything else. They do not hesitate. People say that politicians are nasty to each other. They should try the people in this industry. Senator Puplick —You should try the people in the arts industry. Senator BUTTON —Yes, or people from the Opposition, I suppose. I just want to make the point that it is no good directing this sort of demonology about me and all this sort of stuff on the basis of misinformation. Finally, Senator Lewis made a point about continuity. Industries want to know where they are going. I could not agree with that more. Look at the motor vehicle plan. Those opposite were in government for 27 years out of the last 30 before this Government was elected. In the last 15 years of their Government, 10 changes were made to the motor vehicle plans-10 motor vehicle plans. Every second year there was a new motor vehicle plan. This Government has been the first government in the history of this country to give some sort of continuity to the motor vehicle industry in terms of a plan. Those opposite should ask any of the people in the motor vehicle industry what they think about it. They do not like it all, but they say that this Government has given some continuity. Those opposite should not come here and criticise this Government about questions of continuity. They should look at their own abysmal record. I could go through it from A to B-it is quite a short record in terms of performance-and illustrate the point which I am simply trying to make. All I am saying is: Be careful about handing out lectures on continuity without looking at some of the facts. Mr Chairman, I am grateful for your indulgence. I hope that you will now put the clauses to the Committee. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that clauses 64 to 68 stand as printed. Senator Lewis —I will be only a few moments-- The CHAIRMAN —Is this relevant to clause 68? Senator Lewis —Yes, it is relevant to what Senator Button has just said. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted for Senator Lewis to speak on that subject? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.13) —I will not develop the argument any further. I draw Senator Button's attention to his statement on page 7 of the plan as originally announced on 5 June. He said that an amount of $27m will be provided to the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) to finance investment in resource processing. Clause 25 (c) talks about the AIDC and states: where the Corporation participates in any such project-the provision of finance to the Corporation for use by the Corporation in the payment of interest on, and the cost of, money borrowed by the Corporation to enable it to participate in the project. I read that as meaning that, instead of being granted $27m to fund the project, what the Government was intending to fund was only the interest on the money which the AIDC would have to raise in order to carry out its funding. The interest on $27m will be a lot less than $27m. That is the way I understood that. I may be wrong. If I am wrong, please tell me so. Senator Button —You are wrong. Senator LEWIS —Thank you. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.15) —I refer to clause 65, which states: Any financial assistance under this Act shall be provided out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose. I make two appeals to the Minister: the first is that he does not use the threatened across-the-board tariff cuts to scuttle the industry and that, if there are to be tariff cuts, he recognises those industries that have had their plans put in place after the currency realignments and differentiates them from the other industries. My other appeal is that, in any review of the taxation provisions and in the May economic statement, he recognise that in the financial assistance packages to try to modernise plants within the textile industries he must not scuttle the current depreciation allowances, which could effectively make the modernisation program within this plan so much more difficult. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.16) —No pleas from Senator Watson fall on deaf ears. Clauses agreed to. Postponed clause 4 agreed to. Title. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.16) —I just wanted to make clear that I posed a question to Senator Button in my remarks before. I said, `If I am wrong, please tell me that I am wrong'. Senator Button responded, `Yes, you are wrong'. I said, `Well, if I am wrong, I am wrong'. I just want to make sure that that is recorded in Hansard. If it was not recorded previously, it is now recorded in Hansard, because my belief and my instructions are that I am right and that Senator Button is wrong. Title agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.18) —The debate on the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill 1988 has been somewhat confusing because it has ranged over a number of days. I simply wish to make crystal clear the position of the coalition parties. We are concerned for the textile, clothing and footwear industries. We are concerned for the people who work in them and for the future of these companies. We recognise the great contribution which they have made in the past to our economy, especially the contribution which they have made to rural cities around Australia. I can vouch personally for the contribution which the Warrnambool mill has made to the city of Warrnambool. I point to the value to the city of Horsham in Victoria of Pacific Dunlop Ltd's Holeproof company's recently opened $2m factory which is employing about 135 people. Senator Button —Hear, hear! Senator LEWIS —Senator Button said, `Hear, hear', but in fact Senator Button has made many criticisms of these industries. We on our side recognise and acknowledge that many of them are at the leading edge of technology. If that is doubted, I draw attention to the report of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC). I quote from page xx of the introduction, which states: Indeed, many firms visited used state of the art technology in their processes or had sound reasons for not doing so. Senator Button again made some disparaging aside to one of his instructing public servants in the chamber when I was saying those very things about these firms being used-- Senator Button —I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Lewis does not know what I said to my officials. He has no idea what I said and he should withdraw that comment because it is totally incorrect and dishonest. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Senator Button, there is no point of order. Senator LEWIS —If Senator Button has taken great exception to that, I will withdraw it, but it certainly did not give me the impression that Senator Button was approving my remarks about the report of the IAC and about the textile, clothing and footwear industries in Australia using state of the art technology. If Senator Button takes exception to it and denies that that was the purport of his aside, I withdraw it. As I have mentioned before, some textile, clothing and footwear industry leaders are concerned that the defeat of this Bill would put the plan and the safeguard mechanism in jeopardy. We say to them that that is not so. The bureaucratic, intrusive quango established by this Bill is simply not necessary to the plan. If it were necessary to the plan, we would not be opposing its creation. After my many years of experience in the textile industry and my many years of experience in this Parliament investigating the activities of quangos, I say to these industry leaders that this body will prove to be a millstone. The coalition policy is that in the interests of stability and predictability the next coalition government will maintain all current sectoral plans in whatever form they are when we take office, unless we say otherwise publicly before the next election or at some stage of the debate, as I am doing now in relation to this matter. The Opposition does not oppose the textile, clothing and footwear plan as announced by Senator Button. We support its broad thrust. It moves in the right direction as it gradually reduces barrier protection and eliminates quantitative restrictions, whilst encouraging firms to become more internationally competitive. It may need some modification by us in office, especially in the light of the many benefits to industry of our other policies. I should add that in his second reading speech the Minister said that the plan is not immutable, so I suspect that when we get into office the plan will not be as it was announced by the Minister on 5 June last year. Indeed, I have warned industry leaders to expect changes to be announced in the Treasurer's May statement. Senator Button would know that industry leaders would consider announcements of major changes to the textile, clothing and footwear plan as in fact a breach of trust by him after their lengthy negotiations with him. But so be it. As I have said, fundamentally the Liberal and National parties support the plan and in general will maintain what is left of it when we get into office. What we will not support is the establishment of this Authority. On many occasions we have expressed concern about the level of day to day bureaucratic intervention in industry. Notwithstanding the amendments to this Bill, it creates a quango which by its own establishing legislation will be bureaucratic, intrusive, inquisitive and interfering. Indeed, that is the way in which the legislation designs the Authority. The coalition parties say that the Authority is unnecessary and, indeed, this Bill is an excellent example of the different approach to industry adopted by the Australian Labor Party, on the one hand, and the Liberal and National parties on the other hand. We will be voting against it. Question put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Aulich, T. G. McLean, P. A.Beahan, M. E. McMullan, R. F.Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J.Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Burns B. R. Morris, J. J.Childs, B. K. 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. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Wood, W. R.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Jenkins, J. A. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael 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.Chapman, H. G. P. Reid, M. E.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Hill, R. M. 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.Coates, J. Baume, PeterForeman, D. J. Chaney, F. M.Jones, G. N. Sheil, G.McKiernan, J. P. Teague, B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(11.32) —The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill was first debated in this chamber in the week before Palm Sunday this year, a day on which, of course, people concerned with this type of legislation tend to gather in great numbers around Australia. At that time I had the opportunity to begin my contribution to this debate, which I shall now continue. I remind honourable senators that this is really a technical Bill that will amend the original Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act, which prohibits 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 so allows. Because a patent application could communicate some of the information covered by the original Act, this Bill will amend the Patents Act 1952 to allow the Australian Safeguards Office to issue or deny permits for patent applications dealing with enrichment, reprocessing, and so on. The Australian Democrats believe, of course, that it should be illegal to distribute information on nuclear weapons production, reprocessing or heavy water production under any circumstances; and that information on enrichment to greater than 20 per cent uranium 235 also should be banned, given that non-proliferation is the objective of the Bill. However, that prohibition should be made in the original Act. Although the Australian Democrats still wonder why the Government wants to leave open these options, we support the Bill as a necessary adjunct to existing legislation if the Government wishes to continue down this track. Of course, the Australian Democrats do not in any way approve of the use of uranium, and believe it important that we consistently put that position. Unfortunately legislation such as this draws to our attention all the more readily that it is mere window dressing for honourable senators to pass such legislation while we are mining and exporting uranium, and especially so while we are exporting uranium to France. The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) pointed out in his second reading speech on this Bill that this is not momentous legislation. That seems to the Australian Democrats to be a massive understatement. The whole issue of non-proliferation, which of course is dependent on safeguards, is one upon which we believe it is very important to spend time thinking. Claims are consistently made by the Hawke Labor Government, other proponents of the uranium industry and people who appear not to have deep concerns about the proliferation and existence of nuclear weapons that the safeguards under which we export uranium are perfectly adequate. Already in this debate honourable senators have heard clear evidence that that is simply not the case. If that evidence were not available before, which of course it was, it was supplied by my colleague Senator Sanders in the debate in this chamber on 24 March. That evidence arose from information supplied from Germany which made quite clear and established on the public record that the safeguards are a sham, that those claims have been shot to ribbons and are full of holes. At that time Senator Sanders exposed in a very public way this uranium safeguards scam, as he called it. To quickly summarise what Senator Sanders said, he pointed out that documents that had been received from reliable sources in Europe proved that two German firms, Nukem and RWE, conspired to bypass Australian safeguards in order to produce weapons grade uranium. In that case those safeguards failed completely, and the only way that we as a uranium exporting country found out about this was through leaked documents from one of those companies, which has now been closed down by the German Government. The watchdog that we have relied upon in the European context, the European Atomic Energy Community, directly approved that deal. Senator Sanders went to considerable trouble to authenticate those documents and he had several translations made of them. He then pointed out what this meant to a country such as Australia that is still exporting uranium. It is obvious that our position on the export of uranium is now shakier that it has ever been. Perhaps to remind honourable senators and listeners to this broadcast, the process involved two stages. In the first stage, nuclear materials which could be upgraded to weapons grade were swapped. In this case it was Australian material. In the second stage, the actual labelling of the material was swapped so that the material would not be recognised and known as Australian material that would be used in an unapproved fashion. By swapping the material, our Australian safeguard system was totally circumvented. The Australian Democrats are pursuing this issue. Senator Sanders has announced that he will introduce a nuclear non-proliferation exports Bill which, while still making clear that the Australian Democrats do not approve of the mining or export of uranium in any event, will have the object of plugging some of those holes. Senator Sanders's Bill will contain measures with which I am sure no Australian would disagree if Australia is to export uranium. The Bill will ban the export of uranium to any country which had not signed and ratified, or which had withdrawn from, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons-surely a very basic point; any country which has not signed and ratified or which has withdrawn from bilateral safeguard agreements with Australia; any country which has not accepted safeguards on all its nuclear facilities. I remind honourable senators that none of those requirements is met by all countries to which Australia at this stage is prepared to export uranium. The Bill will also ban exports to any country planning or continuing to build or test nuclear explosive devices-perhaps the most critical point in this legislation. The Government's comfort in saying that our uranium is only exported for peaceful purposes was blown apart by Senator Sanders's revelation of the safeguards scam. The only way that we can ensure that any country that gets our uranium cannot and does not go into nuclear weapons is to export to a country which is not planning or continuing to build or test nuclear explosive devices, along with the other safeguards earlier mentioned. One of the other requirements in Senator Sanders's Bill would be that we must not export uranium to any country which has stationed on its soil nuclear explosive devices belonging to another country, or which is exporting nuclear material or technology to any country which does not satisfy the earlier conditions. That has been one of the major problems in the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world since we first knew and understood the power of splitting the atom and used it for warlike purposes. Uranium is exported to countries which then enter into arrangements under the lap with countries which then develop nuclear capabilities. Countries such as Pakistan and South Africa come to mind. Senator Sanders obviously has a provision in his Bill which would prohibit Australia exporting to a country which has not agreed not to involve Australian nuclear material or technology in international flag swaps of the kind which has been proven, at least on one occasion, to have taken place in the Nukem situation. If we want to continue to talk about safeguards, which are essential to non-proliferation, we can go back and think about the horrific after-effects which we can now see from earlier nuclear tests-Monte Bello, Bikini Atoll, Maralinga, and now the shifting of the French tests from Mururoa which, it seems, has become honeycombed. Goodness knows what will happen there in the next two or three years. So much for safeguards. We already have nuclear victims on this planet living a miserable existence-not just victims from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but victims in the Pacific, in our own country, and particularly among indigenous communities. To them `safeguards' is a hollow word. One of the areas that must cause great concern in respect of nuclear safeguards is our knowledge of the cover-ups which have taken place, and which continue to take place, in the nuclear industry, whether in terms of nuclear armaments or nuclear power. Senator Aulich —No, not in the nuclear industry. Senator POWELL —I have referred to a major cover-up which Senator Sanders has had a great part in revealing, but there are plenty of other examples. I notice my colleague from the Australian Labor Party saying, `No, not in the nuclear industry', that it could not happen in that industry, but there is plenty of evidence in the nuclear power industry as well that there have been cover-ups. There have been many accidents. I have in my hand a fairly weighty document called the Cousteau Almanac, which is not, as Senator Michael Baume suggested, a tome on bottom of the harbour but an interesting document by Jacques Cousteau, which mentions some of the nuclear accidents which have occurred in the nuclear industry. Without going into any detail, I remind people of those accidents and of their consequences. I ask the question: what do these do for non-proliferation safeguards? Where are the safeguards for people? Windscale, the first of the nuclear plant accidents, was documented in October 1987. The documentation details the impact of this accident when the shutting off of the cooling system went awry, releasing enormous amounts of energy which had been accumulated. That process having commenced, the wind carried plant effluent over the Irish Sea. The winds then shifted and the effluent went across the Lancashire area. Now, many years later, we are faced with questions arising as to the health of people in that area, mutations in fish in the Irish Sea and so on. Those are the sorts of things that we face. I refer to Idaho Falls, in 1965, where there was a small United States Government experimental reactor. Again, there was difficulty in getting information on that matter, but there was an overheating problem; the radiation that was released did not go very far, but there was very severe contamination. At least two people were killed almost immediately, and a third died shortly thereafter. The bodies of the three victims were so `hot' that they were buried in lead coffins. That is the sort of thing that has been occurring in the nuclear industry. At Fermi, outside Detroit, Michigan, there was an incident at an atomic power plant in 1966. Another occurred at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1977. The Tennessee Valley Authority-a power authority originally set up as a hydro-electricity authority-claimed that in that case no member of the public was exposed to radiation, and it was subsequently claimed that the Browns Ferry accident demonstrated that nuclear plant problems could be contained. For a time at least the American public seemed satisfied that these sorts of accidents could occur and that the public would not be affected. Then, of course, came the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979-an accident which is still having its impact, not only on the health of the community in that area but also on the economics of the nuclear industry which I shall mention briefly a little later. I also refer to the incident at Chernobyl about which in the short space of time that is available to me today I shall not go into detail, except to say that as time passes, as more information is gathered, more and more concern is expressed. I point to an article by Peter Kellner in the Age of 11 March which points to some of the latest information that is arising post-Chernobyl. Dr Gould, who is now analysing the figures, has come up with the view that in the four months immediately following Chernobyl between 30,000 and 40,000 more people died than was normal for that time of year in the affected areas. I make the general comment that Dr Gould is one of a growing number of American and European scientists who believe that many more people are harmed by the indirect effects of leaked radiation than perhaps by the diseases which evidently are caused directly. We should not dismiss this growing body of concern when some of us stand up here and defend the nuclear industry. Certainly the Australian Democrats do not for a moment do that. I mentioned briefly the question of the economics of the industry. Earlier in the debate my colleague Senator Coulter went into that matter in some detail but, lest Senator Lewis accuse me of being on the far left of the Left of the Labor Party, which he often does, I can point to the Uranium Information Centre's own newsletter, which I think could be seen to be on the of the far right Right of the Liberal and National parties. In October last that newsletter, which comes frequently to all honourable senators to give us the correct information about the nuclear industry, pointed out that the Atlas Corporation was leaving the uranium industry and closing down its uranium operations at Moab in Utah due to continuing problems in the domestic uranium industry. The company had suffered a net loss of $US52.1m in the year ended 30 June 1987. There is an illustration of the results of the uneconomic nature of the industry. That is even without this industry being culpable, being called to account, for the on-costs of its environmental, social and, particularly, health effects. I return for just a moment to Senator Lewis's accusations in this debate about the Australian Democrats. On 24 March, Senator Lewis made the claim for some reason that, because the Australian Democrats stand firmly and solidly against nuclear proliferation and against the mining, milling, export and use of uranium, that somehow makes us a left wing group, or a bunch of left wing individuals. That claim seems a little at odds with a couple of headlines I have here, one of which says, `Close Lucas Heights, McLachlan urges'. The McLachlan concerned is the President of the National Farmers Federation. Unless Senator Lewis is going to say that the National Farmers Federation is the fifth faction of the far left of the Left of the Australian Labor Party, I think his argument is somewhat inconsistent. I congratulate Mr McLachlan on his understanding of how important it is that we be able, as a country, to produce nuclear-free food for the world market. Perhaps even further, I congratulate him on his understanding that pure food of all kinds, food which is as free from chemicals and nuclear and other contaminants as possible, can only be an economic plus for Australia. So I think Senator Lewis's claims about left wing lunacy and his referring to opponents of this industry as maddies are erroneous. As I have said, this particular debate began in the week before Palm Sunday. It was particularly interesting this year to see that, amongst the tens of thousands of people who marched in the city of Melbourne and the hundreds of thousands who marched around Australia, perhaps more than I can remember before, a particular sort of crowd assembled to express their concerns about these issues. In fact, it was a crowd predominantly made up of young people, of groups particularly of secondary school age who seemed to have come along for a day to express their views and to march with all sorts of other people. When the march in Melbourne went down Bourke Street, approximately another third again joined the march, having been at the annual church service which this year took place at St Paul's Cathedral. It was particularly interesting to see on that Sunday night that even the television cameras had not been able to find any of those crazy maddies or loonies which they usually highlight in their coverage of Palm Sunday. It seems to me that more and more this is becoming a mainstream issue in the Australian community, that less and less the predominant voices are voices of some sort of politically extreme ideology. They are, in fact, the voices of those young people who in greater numbers, in greater proportion than I have noticed before, were at the march. Particularly exciting for me, as an Australian Democrat, was the fact that when assembling with my group of people before the march about a dozen young girls and boys, I would say about 12 to 14 years of age, came up and, although they were totally unknown to me and I had never met any of them before, they asked whether they could assist us to carry our banners. That sort of thing indicates that this was far from a left wing loony exercise. Indeed, those people who are continuing to promote the nuclear industry and to promote nuclear strategies of defence-people such as Mr Spender, who seems recently to have been suggesting that we should be stationing nuclear weapons in Australia-need to realise that a recent United Nations Association poll showed that some 3 per cent of Australia's population will wear that sort of thing. Mr Ian Sinclair, of the National Party of Australia, continues to call for nuclear submarines. Senator Parer said in this debate that we should be enriching nuclear fuels here in Australia, They are increasingly becoming minority views. The views held by the Australian Democrats are not the views of some way out left wing radical group. There has been a lot of criticism of young people in this debate. It has been suggested that they are being fooled, tricked, by a bunch of lunatics. That is not true. They are looking at the pluses, the minuses and the facts of the situation. They can read history; they know there are nuclear victims out there in our own country and in the Pacific, and they want all of this sort of thing stopped. I am sorry that this legislation, which of course the Australian Democrats support, goes only a tiny way down that track. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.55) —I wish to speak briefly on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill. I suggest that the Australian Democrats have again demonstrated their failure to understand the differences between the nuclear power industry and nuclear weapons production, and the fact that the whole of the rationale of the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its various arms, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other safeguards regimes, are based on the fact that nuclear power is with us, that it will continue to expand, that it will be with us for a long time and that it can bring great benefits. It gives to those states that look for those benefits and that wish to go down that path some security that products will not be diverted from the 50-odd nations that utilise nuclear power towards the development of nuclear weapons. That is why the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the safeguards regime have become so important. That is why I support them, and why I think it is a matter of great regret that groups such as the Democrats continually confuse the two issues and therefore in effect debase the NPT and the safeguards regime. We heard this again this morning, in a reference to Palm Sunday marches. The majority of Palm Sunday marchers, Mr Deputy President-as you and I both know, because we both participated-attend to urge upon the nuclear powers of the world restraint and movement towards ultimate nuclear disarmament. We do not go to try to force upon the 50-odd nations that see benefit in the utilisation of nuclear power the view that they should desist from going down that path which has been to their benefit. This Bill is just another small contribution towards further enhancing Australia's part in the safeguards regime, Australia's part in contribution to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It does so by requiring applications for patents that may include certain nuclear information to be submitted to the Australian Safeguards Office for consideration. On some rare occasions there may be in a patent application information that should in some way be precluded from public dissemination on the basis that it may be contrary to the rationale of the safeguards regime. It is a very small contribution, as I say, because although it is directed towards private research there is next to no private research in this field currently being conducted in Australia. That is not surprising because, in turn, there is no government research in the area of nuclear power production-a decision that has been positively taken by this Government. That, to me, is a matter of regret and it demonstrates the inconsistency of the approach of this Government to the subject, which is really the theme of the few words I want to say today. This Government has really attempted to get the best of both worlds. In doing that, it has become something of a laughing stock in the international community. Let me take the example of its attitude to the production and sale of uranium. Australia, by virtue of this Government's policy, sells uranium because the Government recognises that it is commercially sensible to do so, but it limits sales to production from three mines. In some ways it therefore believes, as I said, that it can gain the best of both worlds-that it can be seen to be acting to restrain nuclear production while at the same time seeking to gain economic benefit from it. It is inconsistent-- Senator Cook —What would you prefer to do-have open slather? Senator HILL —I would prefer commercially to utilise the resource subject to a proper safeguards regime. One should sell to those who comply with the safeguards regime, either through the NPT or through adequate bilateral safeguards. At least that is consistent. Furthermore, it would put one in a position where one is just as secure within the safeguards regime as one would be under this Government's policy. If the Government adopted that position, it would no longer be a laughing-stock. It could therefore allow other mines in Australia to be developed, provided that it controlled sales and ensured that sales were subject to the international safeguards regimes. The Government should not attempt to dictate, as it has done, that certain uranium mines in Australia seem to produce some more morally satisfactory ore than others, which is obviously ridiculous. I am sure that the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) would realise, from his travels overseas, that it not only bemuses those who purchase our products but means that our credibility is lost. I am trying to say that the Government's efforts to gain the best of both sides of this argument mean that inconsistencies that are produced turn us into a laughing-stock. The Government has a similar attitude to research. As I said, in some way this Government believes that it can justify the mining and selling of uranium but not justify research into nuclear power production in this country. In some way, by doing what most would say is totally unwise-that is, limiting any form of research-it believes it can go not only to the Australian people but to the world community and claim to be doing so with clean hands. I suggest that that is ridiculous. It is time that this Government decided whether it wants to get into or out of the industry. One thing we can say for the Australian Democrats is that at least they are consistent-they are consistently naive. They are still trying to find some way to stop the world and get off. At least they have been consistent in their position on this matter. The economic demand for this product is soaring. It is something that the Australian Democrats should recognise. In July last year the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency and the IAEA concluded that world uranium production would have to be increased vastly-according to some analysts, by 37 per cent by 1995 to meet world demands. By the year 2025 world demand would be two to five times that of 1995. I remind you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that Australia has 30 per cent of the world's uranium resources but accounts for just 12 per cent of the world market this year. If we continue to maintain the restrictive policies presently in place, we will account for only 18 per cent by 1994. Instead of earning $1 billion annually, as we should be doing, we are getting only about one-third of that figure-about $320m. We on this side of the chamber believe that provided that the safeguards, which we strongly support, are maintained and adhered to, we should be in the market and not moralising in the way that this Government has been doing. I move to the third inconsistency that is demonstrated by this Government in its approach, and that is its attitude to further enriching and processing. In some way this Government feels that selling the product in its crudest form-that of yellowcake-and not adding any value added process to the basic product, is also in some way acting in a more moral way. In actual fact, it can better be argued that if this Government were really interested in the process of restraint, of securing adherence to the treaty, it would be better if these processes occurred in Australia. The longer that one maintains control of the nuclear process-in this case the longer that Australia maintains control of the nuclear process-the more one contributes to the safeguards regime. I would have thought that that was obvious. Therefore, if the Government wants to go down the moral path of argument, as this Government does, I would have thought that it would be easier and more logical to argue that if we retain the product longer and process it in Australia, we would be morally better off than is the case having regard to the attitude of this Government, which is simply to get it offshore as soon as possible so that it principally becomes somebody else's problem. That is the third inconsistency in this Government's approach to the nuclear industry. In this industry technology is now changing quickly. There are great opportunities for Australia to get into the area of processing. We have quite a good basic research record in this country. There is no reason why we could not be contributing to world knowledge in this area as we seek to do in so many other areas. Not only would we be contributing to our economic well-being, which we on this side of the chamber believe is important, but also we would be building our legitimacy in contributing to the safeguards regime. In other words, we would be building our right to contribute to what I would like to see as an ever more effective NPT and a general safeguards support system. I have not raised the subject of defence and our responsibility for defence, which was mentioned by Senator Powell. In the recent decision-making process on what form of submarine would best serve this country in the future, the Government dismissed the option of submarines powered by a nuclear reactor-I am not talking about armaments-for ideological reasons. The Government really had no choice because it is practically impossible to go down that path if there is no nuclear infrastructure to support such a submarine industry. We do not have it in this country because the nuclear industry is precluded by this Government's policies. Therefore, it simply was not an option. I say all of this as one who on many occasions in this chamber has spoken in support of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has urged in different ways that Australia contribute to its further development and security. With some 900-odd nuclear facilities in the world, one would have thought that there was enormous opportunity for diversion of nuclear products. The fact that there have been so few allegations of diversion over the decades is, I believe, a major credit to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to all those states which have supported it and to all those scientists who have contributed their professional working lives towards supporting it. I hope that Australia will continue to do so also. I note the priorities as set down by the IAEA. I think those priorities are worthy of mention and support. Four priorities are listed. The first is the further development of nuclear power. This has always been one of its priorities because that is the other side of the safeguards regime. Countries will contribute only if something is done to benefit them and further development of the industry is seen as important. The second priority is the enhancement of nuclear safety. Originally this was not seen as a principal task of the IAEA. It was not concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors. It was concerned about safeguards against diversion. I am pleased to say that the Agency is now putting a much greater percentage of resources into the question of nuclear safety. Unfortunately it tended to occur after the Chernobyl experience but at least now nation states are recognising that the world community as a whole through this Agency can make a major contribution. One day I would like to see the states of the world prepared to agree on standard safety measures for reactors to become part of an international and binding safety regime in the same way as they have become part of a regime to avoid diversion of nuclear products. The third priority set out by the IAEA, which it sees as its obligation, is the provision of technical assistance to developing countries. I am pleased that it is continuing down that path. The fourth responsibility is the ever-strengthening of the safeguards regime; in other words, the regime which provides for material accountability, for containment and for surveillance procedures. I have said on many occasions that the strengthening is necessary. So many of the shortcomings of the regime are obvious. Such shortcomings are that there are nuclear states which are not members and that particular privileges are given to nuclear weapons states under the agreement which simply engender a reaction against the system by some non-nuclear weapons states and therefore weaken it. Of course, recent allegations of breaches require detailed and careful consideration and remedial action. As I said a moment ago, if we want to contribute to safeguards we have to build a legitimacy to get into the debate. That is one of the reasons I believe that it is in Australia's interests to build that legitimacy not only by providing as the basic resource portion of our ore bodies as fuel but also by being seen as part of the processing industry, by being prepared to engage in research that can be contributed to the Agency and that can become part of the wider world knowledge in this particularly important area of power production. The recent intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty contributed to restraining vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons. That is commendable but, as we all know, a non-nuclear weapons state such as Australia can play only a small part in this area. There still remains a major part that we can play in achieving the equally important goal of restraining horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. I commend the Government for making another small but positive step forward in the form of this Bill but I urge upon it that there is so much more that this country can do towards contributing to a stronger horizontal non-proliferation regime if the Government would only open its eyes and be prepared to become consistent rather than inconsistent and change its basic attitude, which has simply had the effect of discrediting this nation overseas. I want to see the regime strengthened. When we on this side of the House are in government we will certainly act to do so. In the meantime, I would like to see this Government doing much more along that most worthwhile path. (Quorum formed) Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(12.16) —The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987 is a Bill to make amendments to the Patents Act 1952 consequential upon the enactment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 and for other purposes. The Australian Democrats support this Bill which, to quote from the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), states: . . . is not momentous, but it sets in place necessary procedures to ensure that the Safeguards Act and the Patents Act operate in a complementary and harmonious fashion. When Senator Lewis spoke earlier on this Bill he said: 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. In a nutshell, that is precisely it because past so-called safeguards have not prevented France from using our uranium in its own weapons program involving nuclear testing in the Pacific, which of course is much closer to Australia than to France. The export of Australian uranium to France is against the Australian Labor Party's own policies. The safeguards in this Bill are intended to operate in conjunction with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty. There are countless examples in the present monitoring system of tracking exactly where our uranium goes being a failure. Senator Wood gave details of this in his speech when he described the sorry history of monitoring discrepancies. The most notable example at present is the allegation made in Germany earlier this year that in 1985 and 1986 the IAEA lost fissile material sufficient to make 250 nuclear bombs. Just recently there has been a lot of debate in this place about allegations made by members of the European Parliament that the labels on consignments of unenrichable American uranium are being exchanged for those on uranium of Australian origin so that Australian uranium could be enriched to weapons grade-in direct contravention of the Australian safeguards agreement with Euratom. The details of this exchange were graphically illustrated by Australian Democrats Senator Norman Sanders when he showed that Australian exports to Germany had gone astray and that Euratom, the nuclear watchdog, failed to to its job. As I said before, Australian uranium exports to France are clearly contrary to rule 94 of the Australian Labor Party policy platform which states that Australia will refuse to allow the supply of Australian uranium to France until France ceases testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific region. These exports tend to wander around Europe in different forms-to France, Finland and even the Soviet Union. Australian uranium even ends up in Soviet nuclear weapons. So the nuclear safeguards are in fact a myth designed to keep an ignorant population happy in their beds. I would like to remind the Senate that Senator Macklin has had for some time before the Senate the Customs Amendment (Prohibition of the Exportation of Uranium to France) Bill 1987. The notice of motion for this Bill was given on 14 September 1987. We have the unfortunate situation of our uranium being mined in our national parks. It would appear that our national heritage is being sold for 30 pieces of yellowcake. This is exemplified in Western Australia, where the public is being misled over uranium safeguards. I would like to speak briefly about the Rudall River National Park. The Federal and Western Australian governments claim to oppose further uranium mining. The Federal Government also claims it wishes to maintain its three-mine policy, and the State Government claims to have a moratorium on mining in our national parks. But in reality, as with the safeguards, it is the almighty dollar that talks rather than anything else. In fact, the report of the Bailey Committee on Exploration and Mining in National Parks and Nature Reserves which was recently put out by the Western Australian Government recommends in summary that mineral exploration and mining should be allowed in the State's national parks and nature reserve systems. This means in reality that mining exploration is being carried on in the Rudall River National Park, the Hamersley Range National Park, the Nambung Pinnacles National Park, the D'Entrecasteaux National Park, the Fitzgerald River National Park, and the Queen Victoria Springs Nature Reserve. The Bailey report put out by the Western Australian Government should be rejected because mining and exploration are destructive land uses and therefore are totally incompatible with the purpose of a national park or nature reserve. The mining industry cannot rehabilitate areas of natural native vegetation to a satisfactory standard. Unlike the benefits derived by society from national parks and nature reserves, mining is non-sustainable. The mining industry has free access to in excess of 81 per cent of the Western Australian national parks and nature reserves, which together cover only 5.6 per cent of Western Australia. The Bailey report did not consider the option of not allowing mining in national parks and reserves and therefore it does have an inherent bias towards exploitation. Finally, mining our national parks and nature reserves will not solve Australia's long term economic problems, because the mining industry is using the economic situation as a lever to get access to our conservation areas. I also remind the Senate of some interesting figures for national park visits which show an increase in usage. The figures I have here are for the State of New South Wales for the years 1978-79 to 1981-82, when the visits doubled to 14.3 million. In Queensland they increased between 1975 and 1980 from 2.13 million to 3.8 million. Studies in Queensland, in particular of the Cooloola National Park, suggest that the spin-offs economically for local communities around national parks are also substantial. I wished to speak only briefly on this Bill. Although, as I have already said, it is impossible to be absolutely sure about safeguards, the Australian Democrats do support the legislation as the support of any safeguard is better than none at all. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(12.25) —This debate has been longer than might have been expected for a machinery Bill. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill is supported by all of us in the chamber. It is a matter of unanimity and it is a matter consequential upon decisions already taken in the Parliament. We are in favour in this debate of strengthening the safeguards as they are in conjunction with the very important treaty to which Australia is a signatory, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This debate has continued for such a long time because members of one small element of this chamber, the Australian Democrats, who sometimes describe themselves as being to the left of the Australian Labor Party and who are rejected in their arguments by the Opposition and by the Government, have, one after another, along with an independent nuclear disarmament senator, taken it as a platform to put forward their strictly minority views about the nuclear power industry and about nuclear arms. I agree with my Opposition colleagues in this debate that as the Democrats want to use this debate as a platform to put forward their minority and unconvincing views to this chamber, as they do to the public, it is time for us to restate why we reject these views and point out why it is that the words of the Democrat speakers, one after another, have fallen not on deaf ears but on very alert ears not only in the Opposition but also in the Government. Alert as we are to the phoney arguments that are put forward by the Democrats, we reject them on intelligent and responsible grounds. From time to time the Democrats have even alleged that there is a vested interest among people in the Government or the former Government, that senators in the Liberal Party have a vested interest in protecting the nuclear power industry or the export of uranium from this country and the mining of uranium, or that we have a vested interest in maintaining a defence alliance with our close friends in the world. It is not because of a vested interest or some prejudice in the debate that we reject the minority arguments of the Democrats; it is because we are responsible. We believe that nuclear power is necessary to meet the energy needs of the world, that it is a safer and cleaner form of energy than coal and that where it is financially viable it should be used for the benefit of mankind. We in the Opposition and the Government are not industrial Luddites. We cannot turn back the industrial revolution or the technology revolution. We cannot turn back the need of the world for heating, for cooking or for lighting. Fifty countries in this world have nuclear power as their electricity source. The Democrats want them to abandon that. We believe that attitude is irresponsible, and we are not moved in the debate by the speakers for the Democrats on this Bill. Beyond that, the Democrats have confused this issue of nuclear power with that of nuclear arms. However, the Opposition is not confused, and we reject the confusion that the Australian Democrats make in their blind, slavish opposition to anything that looks like uranium or is in any way connected with nuclear matters. They confuse everything and oppose the Australian uranium industry. I seriously think that they are pulling this country backwards because they have had some influence on this Government. The influence that they have had on the Government was outlined by my colleague Senator Hill when he said that we have all protested for five years that the Hawke Labor Government has restricted uranium mining to three mines. There is good uranium and bad uranium in this country. Those who got the blessing of the Hawke Government in just three mines are allowed to proceed with the mining and export of that uranium on the safeguards that have been established by the Fraser Government and bilaterally supported by both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. The safeguards are in place and the uranium is here in Australia. It can safely be mined and exported to those who subscribe to the safeguards that we have established. The Democrats have pulled back this country by inducing the Labor Government to have half a uranium policy and half a nuclear power policy. We reject that and it has been referred to earlier. In the second part of my remarks I want to refer to the references that the Democrats have made to the peace movement and to the Palm Sunday marches. There is no monopoly on the desire for peace. How ridiculous it would be for me as a Liberal senator and a founder and co-convenor of the parliamentary disarmament group to claim that I, as a South Australian Liberal, had some monopoly on putting forward a path for peace for this country or for the world. I would be laughed out of court. But I am afraid that that is what the Democrats are doing in this debate. They think that they have got some unique enlightenment, that they alone have the answer to peace. The rest of us in this chamber reject that false claim. On Palm Sunday we should observe what is actually happening. The Democrats and members of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party participate in the demonstration for peace and security. Increasingly the prominence in the Palm Sunday marches for peace around our cities is falling to the churches. After all, Palm Sunday is a Christian festival. It is the day when the churches remember Our Lord coming into Jerusalem mounted on a donkey, the very symbol of peace, and leading to the events of Easter. I am very happy to see that the churches have increasingly put their actions in line with their words and beliefs to make this a Christian march. Senator Powell, who represents the Democrats, has already acknowledged the swelling of the numbers because of the churches. But, at the same time, we see that the numbers have been falling. No one disputes that. The overall attendance at Palm Sunday marches has been declining as the people of Australia are less and less convinced by the loony left. The element that has been growing in those Palm Sunday marches is the direct Christian participation by the churches and, most noticeably, following central church services around our capital cities. So when, even after this last Palm Sunday march, the Democrats claim some monopoly of the Palm Sunday marches, they are wrong. Let me make it quite clear that the Liberal Party calls energetically for disarmament and peace. We have applauded the intermediate-range nuclear forces agreement. We look for the implementation of that recent treaty to see both the Soviet Union and the United States intermediate-range nuclear forces withdrawn from Europe and Asia-indeed, from every place. But we press on to do all that is in our power to see a 50 per cent reduction in strategic nuclear weapons. We want to see some achievement in the aspirations of Gorbachev and Reagan and of the peoples of the Soviet Union and the United States-indeed, the people of Australia. We are all pressing towards that most significant step-it is the next step in my view-on the peace agenda. The Democrats put forward their distortion of the way ahead for peace for this country or for the world. However, I need to point out that we would be putting in jeopardy the achievement of 50 per cent nuclear disarmament reductions if we were to follow their path. It is only on the basis of stable deterrence and mutually verifiable disarmament that we will see a responsible way forward to achieve the disarmament, peace and security that we are looking for. Let it be clearly understood in this debate that the Opposition rejects unilateralism and rejects any group-left loony or otherwise-claiming that it has a monopoly on peace. The Opposition rejects the confusion of the nuclear power industry, all of the issues connected with that and the requirement for the safeguards that we have in place with the debate about nuclear weapons. Let it be restated that the Opposition does not see Australia developing nuclear weapons in the future, but we see it as essential to gain a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons that already exist in the world. We should have a responsible approach and not a head in the sand, irresponsible approach that we have had in this debate from the minority of senators, including the Australian Democrats. I remind the Senate that for 10 years we have been hearing these arguments from the Democrats. The support for those arguments is falling in this country. The overwhelming majority of members of parliament rejects those views and supports the engagement of Australia in the mining and export of uranium. The Opposition calls for more than that-it calls for the processing of uranium to the advantage of Australia. This Parliament also calls for disarmament through mutually verifiable means and not through the irresponsible processes put forward by the Democrats. The Australian people have voted in election after election to support the policies that I am now summarising. There is no monopoly on peace or wisdom in a small left-leaning minority in this chamber. Like those who have preceded me, I support the Bill that is before us and note the rejection by the majority of this chamber of the arguments put forward by the minority that I have been criticising. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.39) —I was forced to rise in this debate on listening to the rather silly remarks made by Senator Teague. Fairly obviously the problem with Senator Teague is that, having been a failure in trying to get the shadow education portfolio, he has now decided to make another portfolio presence for himself in this place. He has decided-I invite honourable senators to look through previous Hansards-to come in here during debates when he is not on the speakers list and have a go at the Australian Democrats. I am quite happy for him to do that because in fact most of the time he makes a fool of himself, as he has just done. Senator Teague should look at what Senator Jenkins, Senator Sanders and Senator Powell said in the debate, because the proposition they put forward was not that we had a monopoly on peace; we have never claimed that. In fact, it was very interesting that Senator Teague never once attempted to quote from Hansard. If he attempted to do that he would find that he would not have a quote to stand on. Nobody in our Party, or indeed nobody that we have worked with on this issue, has ever claimed a monopoly on peace. However, I discovered in Senator Teague's comments-he can look at the Hansard record if he wants to-that he characterised himself as the founder of the nuclear disarmament group. Senator Teague —As one of the founders. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Teague should look at the Hansard record. I am quite happy for him to look at the Hansard record on that matter. In fact, it was Senator Colin Mason of the Australian Democrats who alone initiated the exercise and then invited others to act as co-chairmen because he wanted the exercise to be broad based. Senator Teague —I take a point of order. I do not want to enter into a competition with Senator Macklin in relation to statements that have been made. Many people have been responsible for founding the disarmament group. I reject the claims made by Senator Macklin. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! No point of order is involved. Senator MACKLIN —It is very interesting indeed that the man who loves to come in here and to criticise is so thin skinned that he cannot take anything said of him. Having claimed credit for the exercise from Senator Mason, who is no longer a member of this place, having big-noted himself, Senator Teague wants to continue that type of personal attack. If that is what he wants to do, he will receive the same sort of thing back. But I am not interested in engaging in that particular exercise with a lightweight such as Senator Teague. His ability to argue a point is the reason that he is still inside the paper bag. Senator Sanders has presented evidence to show that nuclear safeguards do not work. If Senator Teague has never listened to any of the arguments about the connection between nuclear weapons and the nuclear generation of electricity-and he has not-I invite him to read the speeches, which I will send him, that appeared in Hansard prior to the world knowing, even though those people who had an interest in this matter knew, that Pakistan, supported no doubt by Senator Teague at the time, was in fact generating electricity that it could not possibly use because it did not have the grid on which to use it. In fact, what Pakistan was doing was using the generation of electricity as a front to develop a nuclear weapons capacity. Of course, we now know that it has that nuclear weapons capacity. The generation of electricity was a pure front. That is why there is an intimate connection between the two. The reason we have made the comment we have on this Bill is very clear, and that is that the capacity, the skills and the understanding required for the successful operation, such as it is, of a nuclear power generating industry in any country are the selfsame skills that are required for the generation of nuclear weapons. If Senator Teague cannot get that through his thick head, I give up on him. Most other people have actually recognised that intimate connection of skills. We do not make that connection simply because uranium happens to be involved; we make that connection because the skills required in those two fields are identical, and that is where one leads to the other. It is a very simple connection that Senator Teague has failed to grasp in his ignorance. I must admit that I am very sorry for him for that. In future I would like Senator Teague to refrain from making his silly and stupid comments about our position on this matter. It is a complex matter. Senator Teague wandered into the area and got his feet blown off. I suggest that in future he stay out of this debate because obviously he has not bothered to read any material on this matter. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister and as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. Does the Minister support the requirement of the Australian Labor Party National Executive, conveyed to members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery in a letter from the Party's Acting National Secretary, that members of the media who cover the next ALP National Conference must hold an appropriate union ticket? Senator BUTTON —I am unfamiliar with that letter, and I shall seek to obtain an answer to the question. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Is the Minister a member of the ALP National Executive? Senator Robert Ray —The Minister was not there. Senator CHANEY —I hear Senator Ray's interjection. For the sake of Senator Button's reputation, I am pleased that he was not there. Mr Henderson, who I am sure Senator Button agrees is or was the Acting National Secretary of the ALP, wrote to journalists saying: I am writing to advise you that at its 7 April meeting, the National Executive agreed as follows: `That all journalists, photographers, film and sound crews working at all ALP national conferences be required to be financial members of a relevant trade union, and that they be required to produce proof of union membership at the time of their accreditation at national conferences'. I shall not quote the rest of the letter, but that is the substance of the motion passed by the National Executive. I ask the Minister whether he supports the imposition of compulsory unionism on those who cover the National Conference, and whether he will take a stance in favour of protecting freedom of speech and freedom to pursue one's occupation in these circumstances. Senator BUTTON —I was asked in the original question whether I was aware of a particular factual situation. My answer to that question was no. Senator Ray helpfully interjected to say that I was not at the National Executive meeting at which apparently this matter might have been discussed. Having said all that, I do not find the suggestion that in order to be admitted to any particular forum journalists should be members of a union to be a matter that inhibits freedom of speech, as Senator Chaney put it. What was the other part of the question? Senator Chaney —Freedom to practise in order to carry on their job. Senator BUTTON —I do not regard that requirement as being either of those things. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in the Townsville Bulletin on 6 April entitled `A Loans Scandal Emerges in the Sugar Daddy Game'? The article alleges a political motivation for the Export Finance Insurance Corporation's decision to secure loans made to Cuba and Nicaragua to buy sugarcane harvesting equipment from Australia. Is the Minister aware that this article was written as a result of a question and media release by Mr Alexander Downer, the honourable member for Mayo, and a question by Senator Lewis last month? Does this article misrepresent the situation in relation to loans? Does it ignore the significant assistance that the loans have provided to Australian industry? Will the Minister advise what Austoft Pty Ltd, the Australian company in question, has had to say about the allegations being made by the Opposition and the writer of this newspaper article? Senator BUTTON —That article was drawn to my attention. I must say that I am concerned about it because the article is clearly based on an answer I previously gave in the Senate. I thought that answer would have been sufficient to stop what I regarded as an intellectually dishonest campaign by the conservative side of politics in relation to this matter. I do not want to go over old ground on the issue. However, I simply make the point that it is not the policy of this Government to put foreign governments through an ideological filter before allowing companies to do business in those countries. Senator Puplick —Except with uranium. Senator Peter Baume —And except for South Africa. Senator BUTTON —I would have hoped, with the unanimous support of the Liberal Party Opposition-- Senator Puplick —Just do not misstate the position. Senator BUTTON —I hope with the unanimous support of the Opposition. If there is any doubt about that, I hope that the Opposition will let us know-and of course there is some doubt about the Liberal Party's attitude to that question. The point I was trying to make before Senator Lewis interjected on Senator Colston's question is simply that we do not put companies through some sort of ideological filter in relation to other countries with which Australian companies are entitled to do business. I believe that is an important principle in the administration of concessional loans and other assistance to companies involved in export markets. The company that is the subject of this article in the Townsville Bulletin, which refers to a loans scandal in the sugar daddy game, is called Austoft. As I said in the Senate previously, that company is one of the two premium manufacturers of sugarcane harvesting equipment in the world. Nicaragua and Cuba produce significant quantities of sugar, and that is very important to their economies. Austoft has been very much maligned by this article and by what was said in the Senate. Senator Lewis —The company has not been maligned by anything I said. Senator BUTTON —Perhaps Senator Lewis had better correct a misapprehension that the company has. I shall quote what it said: Mr A. Downer and Senator A. Lewis are making political capital out of an export trade matter and are not telling the complete story. The company goes on to make the point that overseas suppliers who are competitors of Austoft are being assisted by agencies in their countries, similar to Austrade, which will guarantee loans that will be used to buy equipment. That statement refers particularly to Germany, which is the other significant manufacturer of sugarcane harvesting equipment. The company said further: In the particular case of the sales ex Austoft a competitor was involved and loan funds were offered by a foreign country to that competitor. The granting of this insurance facility to Austoft allowed high technology export sales to be made and kept 250 people employed at Austoft during a period of domestic uncertainty in the industry. In Bundaberg the multiplier effect of this is estimated at 6:1 and, therefore, we could readily assess that some 1,500 people were affected by this decision. They are 1,500 people in Senator Stone's electorate in Queensland, most of whom are employed by a very good company which is competitive in world markets and which has ancillary companies, subcontractors and so on contributing to that effort. The result was that a good company was assisted through a difficult time. However, all we hear in this place is ideological criticism of that decision. The company had this further to say: Some years ago Australia was able to export its primary products, raw materials and manufactures to clients in stable developed countries. Today we are not afforded that luxury and we must, by necessity, divert our export effort to less stable developing countries. This, of course, increases the risk of non-payment and need for insurance. What Mr Downer and Senator Lewis fail to recognise is some essential facts about export industries in this country-- Senator Lewis —If we had decent interest rates in Australia. That was the point. Senator BUTTON —No, that was not the point you were making. Your point was quite clear. The company went on to say: It rather appears to me that they- that is, Senator Lewis and Mr Downer- are not businessmen and some realities of risks of doing business should be brought to their attention. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Does the Minister agree with recent suggestions that the worst is over in terms of economic hardship, as has recently been stated by both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister? Does he agree that Australians, especially middle income earners, can expect an end to the fall in living standards which they have been experiencing in past few years? In particular, does he agree that there is now room for a relaxation of wage restraint? Senator WALSH —On the question of living standards, in the long term sustainable living standards are determined by productivity with some adjustment for movements over time in the terms of trade. I do not think that is disputable. I was asked whether I think that the worst is over. I certainly do not think that the worst is over for the National Party of Australia or the coalition. Senator Stone sooner or later will spit the dishcloth out of his mouth and again wipe his boots on the Opposition Leader, Mr Howard, as he and his Federal parliamentary leader were doing for most of last week. So I certainly do not think the worst is over for the Opposition coalition. Indeed, I think that it has hardly begun. On the question of the economy-- Senator Chaney —Keep it up. We found out in Groom how fond of you they are! Senator WALSH —I am sorry, Senator Chaney, I did not follow that. We all know that on Tuesday night of last week his lackeys cruised around the Press Gallery for a couple of hours painting the Opposition Leader as the macho man who had put everybody down; on Wednesday Senator Stone wiped his boots on him; on Thursday Mr Sinclair wiped his boots on him; and on Friday Mr Howard said that it was quite all right for the National Party to have a different tax policy from the Liberal Party of Australia, having said three days earlier that coalition tax policy was binding on the National Party as well as on the Liberal Party. If I may offer a bit of gratuitous advice to the Liberal Party, or repeat such advice as I offered to the Liberal Party a couple of weeks ago, and in particular to Mr Greiner in New South Wales-- Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. The point of order is not that the Minister should not offer gratuitous advice, but that he is now clearly debating the question. Indeed, I think that he is debating some other question, which is even more objectionable. I ask you to call the Minister to order. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is tending to range rather widely. I ask him to return to the question that he was asked. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. Is the worst over? It is a fact, Senator Stone-well, one cannot be absolutely certain that it is a fact, but it is beyond reasonable dispute-that the current account deficit for this financial year will come in at around or probably just below 4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). That is down a full two percentage points from where it was a couple of years ago and where it was in 1981-82. When it has fallen an extra one per cent, it will be at a lower level than the GDP growth rates recorded on average under this Government. In other words, with another one per cent fall in the current account deficit, that deficit will be lower than the average GDP growth rate, provided that that growth rate is maintained and the foreign debt as a proportion of GDP, it follows inescapably, will fall. Certainly if the worst is defined in quantitative terms, then on that assessment the worst is over. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer, however, and, if I may say so, I, have all been stating for several months-and in the Prime Minister's case as recently as a couple of days ago or towards the end of last week-that Australia cannot afford to go on a wild spending spree or relax the sort of fiscal discipline that this Government has applied. The Prime Minister did not say this, but I am sure that he had it in mind: above all, Australia cannot afford the sort of wild spending spree and the fiscal ratbaggery which showed itself in the 1982 Budget and which was again demonstrated by the Opposition in the run-up to the last election campaign. We cannot afford to bring down a Budget with no economic strategy, as Mr Howard did in 1982-just a political strategy aimed at buying up a sufficient number of pressure groups by offering them either tax bribes or expenditure bribes to hopefully, he thought, get him past the next election. We certainly cannot afford that. In regard to the matter that was raised a while ago as to the relationship in the coalition, I notice that the other day Mr Greiner had some consultations with Sir Charles Court. There are not many things that I admire about Sir Charles Court, but I do admire one thing and I also believe that he was indisputably correct: he knew how to deal with the National Party or the Country Party. He kicked it in the teeth, because it has nowhere else to go. I gave Mr Greiner that same piece of advice a couple of weeks ago. I am sure that he will take no notice of it, and in a couple of years time or in the run-up to the next election he will regret not having taken any notice of it. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Leaving aside the diversionary remarks of the Minister for Finance, which were as much expected as they were in line with his normal approach to answering questions in this place, may I nevertheless ask him-in doing so I point out to him that the current account deficit this year will come in at rather lower than he claimed credit for-whether he will agree that the whole, if not more than the whole, of that improvement in 1987-88 over 1986-87 has resulted from the sharp improvement in the terms of trade? Does the Minister therefore agree that if there is any underlying adjustment in the trade and services account of the balance of payments, it is so far proving to be no more than is necessary to account for the continuing deterioration in the property income servicing account? In other words, will the Minister agree that the treadmill on which this Government's policies have launched Australia in increasing debt and continually underlying balance of payments deficit to increase that debt further, is still running as fast as ever? Will he in the light of that answer the question whether the worst is over, or whether, as Ministers in this Government only recently before the New South Wales elections were claiming, there is a long road still to go? Senator WALSH —As I said earlier, the current account deficit as a proportion of GDP stood at around 6 per cent in 1985-86. I said that there was little doubt that it would come in at 4 per cent or a little lower in 1987-88. Apparently Senator Stone does not dispute that. Senator Stone —It will be about 3.3 per cent. Senator WALSH —We cannot be sure of that yet, although I certainly believe that it will come in at below 4 per cent. I was then asked whether the whole of that improvement was due to a movement in the terms of trade. The answer to that is no. It is true that there has been an appreciable improvement in the terms of trade. For the year ending December the improvement was, I believe, 7.6 per cent, which does not account for all of that very large improvement in that short period by a long way. Other factors contribute to the closing of the gap. For example, it should be acknowledged that to a very large extent it is a function of devaluation of the Australian dollar, though not entirely due to that. There has been a massive increase in tourism, with foreigners spending money in Australia, which has made a large contribution. It is probable that in recent months a significant factor in maintaining the import flow has been investment in plant and machinery-something which, though it would, if that sort of investment continues to grow, have a short term negative influence on our current account deficit and so on, in the long term is probably needed to solve the problem in a permanent way. Finally, I commend an article published in today's Australian Financial Review and written by Michael Stutchbury which takes up, among other things, questions on the current account deficit. It points out that in 1981 when the current account deficit was running at about 4 per cent-that is, a little higher than it probably is at the moment-Senator Stone was saying it should go higher. In case people cannot be bothered getting the Financial Review to read the article, it ought to be put on the record that its conclusion is that Senator Stone has almost invariably proclaimed his infallibility on economic forecasting and economic analysis, and almost always been wrong. Senator MORRIS —Can the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories inform the Senate of details of the visit to Queensland by a delegation from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), which is assessing Australia's nomination of the wet tropical rainforests for the World Heritage List? Senator RICHARDSON —In a rather tacky performance in the Senate a couple of weeks ago Senator Boswell did ask whether or not the IUCN delegation was being taken on some sort of secret junket around Australia. As a result of Senator Morris's question I am now able to put the lie to that assertion. The itinerary for the visit of Jim Thorsell, Professor Hamilton and Mr Lucas has now been developed, and I think a copy has been sent to Senator Boswell. Within the limited time available for this visit appointments have been made for the delegation to see the Queensland Premier-that is, the current Premier and not the one that Senator Boswell supported-and also the Queensland Minister for Environment, Conservation and Tourism. Having listened to him a few times, I am sure he is a Minister the honourable senator does support. Various other Queensland Government officials will be met in Brisbane, and there will even be a meeting with the Queensland Government's notorious NORMA-the Northern Rainforests Management Agency. Also, Queensland Forestry Department officials will be meeting with the delegation three times on site-on the Mount Windsor tablelands, at Downey Creek and at a third site that the IUCN delegation may choose. Furthermore, an officer of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service has been asked to travel with the delegation for five days. So presumably he is on the junket as well. The delegation is also going to meet with representatives of the timber industry, local Aboriginal communities, the mining industry, local councils, the Cairns Chamber of Commerce and conservation groups. That shows, of course, that the IUCN is treating this exercise seriously. It is in a short time meeting with an extraordinary number of interest groups and government officials. Of course, I have not mentioned the fact that I am meeting the members of the group as well, and we have since organised for Senator Puplick, at his request, to see them also. The fact that this is going on is no surprise, and it demonstrates just how serious the IUCN views this task. I know it has been said that the IUCN is simply a rubber stamp but it should be pointed out that last year 41 of the 63 World Heritage nominations scheduled were successful; so roughly a third of the applications put before the IUCN were not proceeded with. So from the Commonwealth's point of view I would have to say that we welcome this rigorous analysis. We have nothing to hide. We have the scientific information available, and it will be produced. We are confident that, based on that information, the outstanding natural heritage that we have in our north Queensland rainforests will stand up to the test and be successfully nominated in December. Senator JENKINS —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware that on Friday, 9 April Dr Arthur Hempel and Mr Lawrence Etheredge were extradited from Western Australia to Israel to face charges relating to the alleged theft of the schooner Orionia, which has been returned to Israel? In the light of the statement by Senator Tate during the committee stage of the Extradition Bill 1987 and the Extradition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987, on 19 February of this year, that `We do not have extradition treaties with nation states which in our opinion do not have sound legal systems', what steps will the Minister take to ensure that Dr Hempel and Mr Etheredge are treated in a correct manner and are subject to a fair trial? Has the Attorney made contact with the United States Attorney-General to monitor the trial jointly? Can the Minister assure the Senate that Dr Hempel and Mr Etheredge have had access to an attorney and that they will be legally represented by counsel of their own choice in accordance with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia, Israel and the United States of America are signatories? Does the Minister know whether the trial will be in English or in Hebrew? If the latter, does the Minister know whether the defendants will have access to free interpreting and translating facilities, also in accordance with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Senator TATE —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, which was asked in five parts: The answer to the first question is yes. As to the second question, following the departure of Dr Hempel and Mr Etheredge, the Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv was asked to monitor the trials and report back on their progress. Prior to the issue of the warrants of surrender, the Attorney sought advice as to the legal system in Israel. The advice confirmed that Israel's legal system is basically a common law one and that the rules of evidence in criminal justice matters are similar to those in Australia. The answer to the third question, concerning whether the Attorney has made contact with the United States Attorney-General to monitor the trial jointly is no, he has not. However the United States consulate in Perth is aware of the matter. As to the questions about access to an attorney of their own choice and so on, the Criminal Procedure Law 1965 of Israel provides, in section 11: No person may act as defence counsel unless duly qualified to do so and unless the accused has expressed in writing the desire to be represented by him or has given him a power of attorney or he has been appointed by the court for that purpose under section 13. Section 13 provides, so far as is relevant: . . . where the accused not being represented by counsel is of insufficient means . . . the court may, either upon the application of one of the parties or on its own motion, appoint counsel for the accused. The fifth question was whether we know whether the trial will be in English or in Hebrew. Dr Hempel and Mr Etheredge raised the question of the litigation language of Israel throughout the extradition proceedings. The magistrate who first heard the extradition case heard evidence that civil proceedings relating to the vessel Orionia prior to their departure from Israel had been conducted in English. The Attorney-General subsequently sought further information on this issue and was advised that while proceedings are usually in Hebrew all judges and lawyers speak English and argument before Israeli courts is often in English. He was also informed that where the defendant is non-Hebrew speaking and the proceedings are conducted in Hebrew, the defendant would as a matter of course have access to an interpreter. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Local Government and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women aware of criticism claiming that the Federal Government has excluded local government from its efforts to advance equal employment opportunity for women, and will she explain the Commonwealth's role in assisting State and local governments to promote equal employment opportunity for women? Senator REYNOLDS —The Commonwealth's affirmative action legislation does not cover local government, as of course local governments are constituted under State Acts of Parliament. So far, only two States have developed legislation to cover equal employment opportunities in local government but I am pleased to say that in Western Australia the Equal Opportunity Act of 1984 is administered by the Directorate of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment. Part 9 of the Act requires that councils do prepare an equal employment opportunity management plan by 8 July this year. In Victoria, schedule 6 of the Local Government Bill (No. 2) is currently before the State Parliament, and it addresses the adoption of equal employment opportunity practices by councils. The Commonwealth has assisted States and councils in the development of employment opportunity equality in a number of ways. The Local Government Ministers Conference has been very supportive of this issue and has asked the National Review of Local Government Labour Markets, set up under its auspices, to address the issue of modern personnel practices, including, of course, equality of employment opportunity. Under the local government development program-a program which is funded by my Department-a number of projects have been funded in the past to highlight the need for more work to be done in the area of equal employment opportunity within local government. There has been a pilot program in New South Wales. The Municipal Officers Association of Victoria has also prepared a national report on the development of equal employment opportunity in local government. The Municipal Officers Association has also undertaken a study of women's representation among elected representatives. Senator WALTERS —Is the Minister for Finance concerned about the plight of an increasing number of pensioners with relatively small incomes from investments who are now being required to pay provisional tax? Is it a fact that about 340,000 pensioners will be paying this tax by July and up to half a million will be in that position by 1990 if the current limits remain? Senator WALSH —I presume that the question was addressed to me because I represent the Treasurer. It is, of course, a taxation matter and therefore it is a matter for the Treasurer, not me. I do not know whether the figures that were cited are correct. They sounded, however, to be in about the right ballpark. I believe-this is subject to confirmation-that the Treasurer is looking at this matter now, or will be doing so in the near future. Senator COLLINS —Can the Minister for Transport and Communications advise the Senate of the outcome of his recent air services discussions with Japan? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am very pleased to be able to advise the Senate that, as a result of very successful bilateral aviation talks which concluded last week between Australia and Japan, airline passenger services between the two countries will increase by 60 per cent during 1988. Under the new agreement the total number of Australia-Japan services operated by Qantas Airways Ltd, Japan Air Lines (JAL) and All Nippon Airways will jump from the existing 21 services per week to up to 30 services per week by the end of the year. The 60 per cent figure derives from the fact that some increase has already occurred in this calendar year, plus there are different sizes of aircraft-747s and 767s-operating on the route. A 60 per cent increase in capacity overall is contemplated. This very significant increase, to be phased in throughout the bicentennial year, does of course recognise the enormous growth in recent years in the number of Japanese tourists visiting Australia and the fact that this growth is expected to continue. The agreed boost to air services will begin this month with a further increase in October, but there is scope in the agreement for new services to be introduced earlier if possible. Qantas will proceed with plans to introduce more services to Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, along with additional seats to Brisbane and Cairns. In particular, there will be a second weekly service to Perth and two additional services to Melbourne, giving Melbourne daily access to Tokyo. The way is also clear for the Japanese carriers, JAL and All Nippon Airways, to introduce up to a total of five new services per week to Australian ports this year. Both countries will be reviewing demand early next year to look at services to operate from April 1989. This is just another demonstration of the extraordinarily explosive and rapid growth in international aviation which continues to occur. It is another demonstration of the capacity of our national carrier-and the Government, as a whole, negotiating on its behalf-to secure commensurate increases in aviation access rights, notwithstanding some of the criticism we still continue to hear from more churlish-minded souls who are continuing to assert that those opportunities are not being taken advantage of. Senator KNOWLES —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to the answer he gave me on 18 March concerning the release of confidential information on the coastwatch contract by the Department of Transport and Communications to the Labor member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Graeme Campbell. The Minister will recall that he said: I have no information whatsoever about the particular matters to which Senator Knowles refers. Is it true that Mr Vanda Gould, a director of Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, wrote to the Minister on 9 February to outline many concerns that he had, including the release to Mr Campbell of confidential information on Amann's financial backing by the Department? Is it also true that the Minister responded to Mr Gould's allegation in a letter bearing his signature and dated 30 February-a date which, to my knowledge, does not exist other than in Senator Evans's office? In view of the Minister's knowledge of this particular allegation, why did he say that he knew nothing of the matter and, hence, mislead the Senate? Senator GARETH EVANS —One explanation could be that the letter does not exist if it was dated 30 February, but we will follow up that particular exercise in metaphysics later. I still have no recollection of the matters. I will need to refresh my memory on them. All I can recall is that I was the recipient-I do not know whether I was the beneficiary, but I was certainly the recipient-of an endless series of long and turgid letters from Mr Vanda Gould throughout a substantial period-dropped copies of which invariably went to the Opposition, I notice, at the same time, although this was not acknowledged until subsequently-retailing an endless series of allegations about various alleged misdemeanours and errors of judgment perpetrated against him and his company by a variety of people. I ceased to read those letters in detail at an early stage and I replied, as I recall, not least because the matters in issue were manifestly squarely related to litigation then in existence from Amann Aviation involving the Commonwealth. The matters were obviously ones for the lawyers to resolve and, as I recall, I tended to reply in those terms. I will need to check my recollection of the particular matters to which Senator Knowles refers. If I have a further answer I will give it to her as soon as possible. Senator Knowles —I seek leave to table the letter from Senator Evans to Mr Gould dated 30 February. Leave granted. Senator WOOD —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Is it not true that the Government has decided to discontinue the full time position of the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament? Is it also true that the Peace, Arms Control and Disarmament Branch of his Department has suffered serious staff reductions? What are these measures and do they indicate that the Government believes that the pursuit of international disarmament is a part time job? Have Australia's abilities to participate effectively in international processes of disarmament and arms control been seriously reduced? Do these decisions call into question the Government's commitment to disarmament and has the notion of an Ambassador for Disarmament become a public relations exercise? Finally, do these decisions reflect yet another abandonment of Australian Labor Party principles, specifically the electoral promises to maintain with adequate resources a disarmament and arms control section within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and an Ambassador for Disarmament in Geneva? Senator GARETH EVANS —Our top level representation in Geneva currently provides for three ambassadors, one each in the United Nations, disarmament and trade fields. Towards the end of this year the position of Ambassador for Disarmament and the position of permanent representative to the United Nations will be combined. There is no question of any downgrading of the Government's global priorities or activities in such areas. Senator Stone —He never had a job to do in the first place. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Stone will be in the same position soon if he keeps opening his mouth in the way that he is-that is, if Mr Howard summons up the courage to do what he ought to do. There is no question of any downgrading of the Government's global priorities or activities in such areas as disarmament and human rights, which are amongst the key functions of the missions in Geneva. The staff of the two delegations will be quite unaltered apart from the merger of the two ambassadorial posts. We are able to move to this less costly arrangement without any loss of effectiveness because of Mr Butler's success as disarmament ambassador in raising Australia's standing in multilateral disarmament diplomacy. We believe that this vindicates our earlier decision to appoint a separate ambassador for disarmament. As to the more general questions about staffing and so on, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, like all other Federal departments, is undergoing substantial cuts in staffing. It is a measure of the continuing high priority that the Government attaches to disarmament that the staff resources allocated to that work have been cut less than many other areas of the Department, not counting staff previously engaged in work specific to the International Year of Peace in 1986. The Government continues to allocate considerable numbers of staff to disarmament, overseas, in the Department in Canberra and in technical agencies such as the Materials Research Laboratory and the Australian Seismic Centre. Australia is maintaining a capacity to contribute very effectively to the international processes of arms control and disarmament, including through the continued appointment, as I said, of an ambassador for disarmament, albeit a post merged with another. So it follows that the answer to the other parts of Senator Wood's question, in so far as they are anything other than purely rhetorical, is no. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources. The Minister should be aware that, by all forecasts, whether they be by the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics or the oil industry, in the absence of major oil discoveries, we in Australia will be looking at an import bill for oil in the early 1990s of between $3 billion and $5 billion a year, which will further disastrously affect the standard of living of every Australian. The Minister is reported as having told the Australian exploration companies on Tuesday, 22 March, that the quest for self-sufficiency in oil should not be an overriding consideration. He said: There is no point in subsidising petroleum exploration at the cost of other productive sectors in the economy which would otherwise be earning the export income to pay for oil imports. Can the Minister advise what those other productive sectors are, leaving out the gas from the North West Shelf? What does the Minister mean by `subsidies' when normal company tax is 49 per cent, yet any new offshore discoveries face a disincentive tax of around 70 per cent? Can the Minister respond to statements by the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association (APEA) Chairman, Mr Dave McDonald, that the consultative process promised when Senator Gareth Evans launched the Energy 2000 review 27 months ago had degenerated into little more than lip service to the concept and that the Government's attitude to domestic investment was at best confused and too often hostile? Senator COOK —When Senator Parer rose I thought he might ask me a question about coal prices but, since Mr Sinclair has been muzzled by the coalition and has now complained that he had to withdraw his Press release supporting the Government on coal prices because he did not actually see it and it went out without his authority, Senator Parer does not have the courage to raise any questions about coal. Let me go on to the question that Senator Parer, several weeks down the track after my address to the APEA conference, finds some interest in raising. I am certainly aware that, given the prospectivity of Australia, the known reserves of crude oil in this country and the expectations about the future, it is logical to assume that Australia will be facing an import bill for crude oil towards the end of the century. Whether it will be of the order that Senator Parer asserts-$3 billion to $5 billion per year-is a moot point. Senator Parer's estimate assumes that there will not be any dramatic new discoveries and that oil prices will remain considerably low, as they are at the moment-although I see that just yesterday the price rose by $1 a barrel. It is still expected by most prognoses to remain low for a long time yet. Senator Parer assumes also that Australian exploration companies will not put the effort into exploring either our continental margins or our onshore prospective areas in order to make further discoveries. I suggest that all of those assumptions throw the assessment of what the import bill might be into considerable doubt. However, Senator Parer asks me to say what will be the offsetting other efficiencies in the economy, excluding natural gas. We know that at the end of the next year the North West Shelf project will begin exporting natural gas out of Australia to Japan and earning, as I recall-I think this figure is accurate-in excess of $2 billion a year. Senator Parer —I asked you to exclude that. Senator COOK —The honourable senator asked me to exclude it, but he was talking about sufficiencies. I am saying that we cannot exclude it when we are looking at energy. We are not aiming to achieve some mythical self-sufficiency in oil reserves when the amount of economic and other resources in this country can best be used in investing in other undertakings which will guarantee that our economy will grow and that we will become a much more vibrant economy. We are concerned not about self-sufficiency but about a strategic supply of energy reserves. I think Senator Parer ought to go away and think about that, because that is the most sensible allocation of resources in the economy. There are several other economies in the world to which I draw his attention, most notably Japan, where that is also true. As to the figures that Senator Parer has given us, I overheard an interjection, I think by Senator Walsh, about his assertion that there is 70 per cent taxation on oil development in Australia. I think his interjection was that that figure is not true or is wrong. I concur absolutely with Senator Walsh. That might be a figure that some prophets on the exploration side nominate as an up-to figure, but that is not the figure that I have in front of me. Senator Michael Baume —Come clean. What is the higher tax rate? Senator COOK —If the honourable senator pipes down, I will come to him in a minute. The Opposition seemingly wants to argue, in raising the question of a tax for economic rent purposes, that the resources of this country, which belong to the people of Australia, should not attract an exploitation tax in addition to normal company tax. If Senator Parer wants to put that proposition, I suggest that he get up and put it and try to justify it to the community, which wants a fair return on the resources that we have. Senator PARER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. In view of the response by the Minister and as even he admits that we have a prospective import bill, although he might quibble about the size of it, does he not realise that 49 per cent, or whatever the nominal company tax rate of the day is on profits from oil, is more attractive than 70 per cent of nothing, which could occur in addition to the $3 billion or so increase in imports if the Government persists with its policy of secondary taxation? Senator COOK —Senator Parer assumes in asking that question that the sole determinant of whether there is exploration in this country for further reserves of crude oil is the tax regime and that, if the tax regime were changed, there would be a sudden upsurge of exploration. There are four factors which determine the level of exploration in this country. One is the price per barrel of oil that is available. That is an obvious attraction in that if it is a high price, people invest to chase the profit that is entailed, and if it is a low price, they will not. The price of oil at the moment, despite the $1 per barrel increase yesterday, is still down around our socks. It is a very low price by past standards. The second consideration is the prospectivity of Australia. How prospective are we in terms of finding reserves? There are differing views about that. Held against the Persian Gulf, it is argued that we have a very low prospectivity, which is a fair enough observation. But at the APEA conference to which Senator Parer referred, the Director of the Petroleum Division of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd., Peter Wilcox, said inter alia-I do not have a precise quote-that we write down the prospectivity of Australia; that it is much higher than people allow for. The third consideration is the operational costs, which is not necessarily a factor in this argument. The fourth factor is the taxation regime. Our taxation regime in terms of economic rent tax is comparable with those of other competitive countries and is able to be adapted to encourage exploration in areas of most need. Finally, if Senator Parer is worried about taxes being a determinant, let us look at the statistics. APEA in its monthly bulletin of January or February reported that the number of onshore exploration wells to be drilled in Australia this year is at a record level and that there is a very large number of offshore wells to be drilled as well. If we take all those factors together, I think Senator Parer's tax argument falls into disrepute. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women aware of reports that Mr Greiner is to downgrade the Women's Co-ordination Unit by removing it from the Premier's Department and placing it in the Department of Community Services? Is she aware that Mr Greiner claims he is `interested in results, not in playing games'? Given the achievements for women as a consequence of women's affairs being significantly placed in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at the Federal level, what consequences does the Minister see in the mismatch between State and Federal government departments in dealing with women's issues? Senator REYNOLDS —The question that Senator Crowley raises is a very important one and I am rather surprised that Mr Greiner should be unaware of the very excellent report A Decade of Change-Women in New South Wales 1976-1986. I would recommend it as excellent reading for members of the Opposition and also Government members although they are much more aware of what has been achieved in regard to status of women policy in New South Wales. It is of concern to me that Mr Greiner should even be considering downgrading the Women's Co-ordination Unit in New South Wales because from the Commonwealth point of view and certainly from my point of view, living as I do in Queensland where there is no such commitment to women's policy, over many years I have seen New South Wales as serving as a model in terms of its commitment. Certainly I do not want to underestimate the role that has been played by Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria in more recent years, but New South Wales has been working on developing its status of women policies over a much longer time. It has been a feature of Labor governments in this country to accord the status of women to the highest possible area. In the Federal Government the Office of the Status of Women was returned by Bob Hawke to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Of course, Malcolm Fraser had downgraded the Office and put it with the Department of Home Affairs. It is important to acknowledge how very significant it is for the work that is undertaken by any women's unit, whether it is at State or Federal level, to be where it can be across all government portfolios. I have talked to Senator Vanstone about the importance of this in relation to how the Office of the Status of Women functions. I am very disappointed-though not surprised, I must admit-that Mr Greiner should be making this consideration. I suggest that if he reads what has been achieved over the last 12 years he might have a better understanding of the vital role that has been played by the women's unit. I suggest that if he were to transfer the women's unit to the Department of Community Services he would in fact be marginalising the position of women in New South Wales; he would be saying that the only concern the New South Wales Government has in relation to status of women issues is in regard to community services. Obviously, women are vitally concerned with community services-I have no arguments about that-but women are concerned about every area of government activity. They are just as concerned about transport issues. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator REYNOLDS —I might leave that to another occasion. Is it not interesting that it should be a member of the Opposition saying that this is boring. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister is inciting interjections by debating the subject and I would ask you to ask her to answer the question to enable us to proceed with other questions. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Reynolds to address the Chair and I ask that interjections cease. Senator REYNOLDS —I will go on with what I believe is fundamental to this question. I am sure that Senator Chaney, as a person who I believe does have some commitment to improving the status of women in Australia, will understand that it is of concern to me that Mr Greiner get a full briefing on what is necessary in terms of the women's unit remaining in his Department because it does have implications at the Commonwealth level. I reported in the Senate just recently on the very good report that we received recently when officers of the Department reported to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and said that the United Nations recognised the very important work that has been done by the Australian Government over the last five years. It would be most disappointing if the newly-elected Premier of New South Wales were to do anything that would place that good reputation that we have built up over a number of years in jeopardy in any way. Senator HILL —My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Are references in today's Press correct that as a result of the Prime Minister's intervention Dr FitzGerald has been told to rewrite portions of the review of Australia's future immigration policy to be more politically appealing? Is it true that this followed expressions of objection by some senior Australian Council of Trade Unions leaders who were shown selective details of the final report? Does the Minister agree that the review is now discredited in that the public is never to learn Dr FitzGerald's views? If the Government wanted a politically sanitised review, why did it not simply produce a White Paper out of the office of the Prime Minister or that of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs? Senator BUTTON —I know nothing about that suggestion. I will make inquiries and obtain an early answer. Senator DEVLIN —Is the Minister for Consumer Affairs aware of Press reports that a certain brand of wine cooler has been advertised as being `government endorsed'? Is the Government concerned that this kind of advertising could conflict with the national drug offensive, which seeks to discourage alcohol abuse? Can the Minister inform the Senate of what action he has taken about this advertisement and what the response has been? Senator BOLKUS —Senator Devlin's question relates to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 March on wine coolers. The article arose out of a Press release from Senator Haines of the Australian Democrats. She expressed concern at the availability of the Tropicana wine cooler produced by Lindemans. The concern was on the basis, firstly, that the wine cooler advertised itself as being government endorsed. The second level of concern was that there may not have been sufficient enforcement of an agreement between State, Federal and Territory Ministers as to the regulated size and ingredient composition of wine coolers. Thirdly, Senator Haines expressed general concern about under-age drinking. The background to this problem is that the Federal and State Ministers have been concerned about the production of wine coolers and their proliferation and particularly concerned about the access that some people might give themselves to them, deceptively in terms of the levels of alcohol in wine coolers. Accordingly, State and Federal governments have had gazetted-it is ready for adoption-a food standard governing both the upper alcohol level being 3.5 per cent and also the package size being a minimum of a one litre container. Another aspect of the standard is total ingredient designation. Having reached that stage, the Government had been advised by the wine industry that all coolers currently under production were conforming to that standard, and we believe that they are. However-Senator Haines rightly raised this question-the claim of government endorsement of wine coolers could be deceptive and could be seen to be deceptive by consumers. The argument is that in advertising the Tropicana wine cooler as being government endorsed, although the company was referring to the size of the package and the labelling thereon, an impression could have been left with the community that the actual alcoholic product was government endorsed. Arising out of the point that Senator Haines raised at the time, I contacted Lindemans, which produces this wine cooler, and raised the matter with it. In response it agreed not to continue production of this container labelled in such a way, and it has agreed to change the labelling to remove the government endorsement. In closing, I thank not only Lindemans for its co-operation in ensuring that an area of misrepresentation would not be proceeded with, but also Senator Haines for raising this matter in a constructive way and accordingly for helping to achieve a positive response. Senator BOLKUS —On 22 March 1988 Senator McLean asked me a question relating to automated correspondence, particularly in regard to letters sent by the Department of Social Security. I have some further information to add to the answers that I gave him on that day and on the next day. The nature of the work of a particular department of state, its volume of routine or standard correspondence and the size of relevant client groups are all relevant issues to the correspondence procedures adopted by departments. Accordingly, it is impossible to generalise about the use of automated correspondence. It is also impossible to generalise about the legal force of different types of such correspondence, since legal status would depend upon the purpose of the letter, the specific provisions of the relevant legislation and the actual form of the letter. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-On 25 March in the Senate there was a somewhat acrimonious debate about events which had occurred in Parliament House the night before. During Question Time Senator Chapman asked me a question which contained the following allegation: . . . Mr George Gear, chairman of the so-called social national price watch committee, who is reported in today's Age as saying he was `supporting the workers' by drinking for free at the non-members bar? Will the Minister dissociate himself and the Government from the totally irresponsible attitude adopted by the honourable member for Canning, who so sanctimoniously rails against alleged overcharging by doctors and others . . . In the course of answering that question I said: . . . the simple point which the honourable senator- that is, Senator Chapman- is trying to make is made by singling out an Australian Labor Party member of parliament and accusing him of outrageous behaviour, on the basis of some statement which he is alleged to have made. A little later on I said: He- I was referring to Senator Stone- has a total monopoly on morality in these matters and suggests that nobody else has any. I went on to say: We can play this game in the Parliament. I could dig up . . . a Liberal Party senator who was found lying on the lawns last night, and ask whether he paid for his drinks. But I am not going to do that, because there is absolutely no point in it except in the minds . . . I understand that that remark has been misinterpreted as my alleging that I somehow found a Liberal Party senator lying on the lawns the night before and associated it with some particular person. That is not so. I must say that in the course of the now 14 years that I have been here incidents of that kind have not been beyond my notice. In fact-I will be quite blunt about this-in the course of that time I have seen incidents of that kind involving Liberal members of Parliament and, just as Senator Chaney said to me this morning when we had a discussion about it, I have seen Labor members in that situation too. There is no dispute about that. Anybody who tried to dispute those facts over a period of time would be taking himself a little seriously. Those events do occur. Senator Lewis —What, lying on the lawns? You do not mean lying on the lawns, surely? Senator BUTTON —I regard lying on the lawn as a totally innocuous offence. It is a very good thing to lie on the lawn. If it were accompanied by drunkenness or other morally reprehensible activity-horizontal refreshment, as it is sometimes called- it would be reprehensible; but lying on the lawn in itself is not. I want to make it quite clear that, in so far as I made that remark, I was not seeking to apply it to any Liberal senator. I do not know, but I do not believe that any Liberal senator was in that situation on the night in question. If anybody feels that the cap fits, we will all keep it secret. But I do not believe that anybody from the Liberal Party side of the House was in that situation. If my remark has been interpreted in that way, I apologise. I was trying to give the Parliament an example of how, by making these unsubstantiated allegations, we can debase the process of debate in this House, and I did not want to do that. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I do not wish to speak to the motion now because an important statement is to be put before the Parliament and a matter of public importance is to be brought on for debate. However, I am pleased that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has clarified the position and said that he was speaking in a hypothetical manner. I appreciate the apology which he expressed at the conclusion of his remarks. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —I seek leave to make a statement entitled `Mid-term Review of the Car Plan' and to move to take note of the statement. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —In May 1984 I announced in this chamber a new policy package for Australia's passenger motor vehicle (PMV) industry. That plan was an early and major initiative by this Government to begin the process of change, renewal and revitalisation of Australia's manufacturing sector. We faced at that time a profound sense of pessimism and lack of direction which had come to permeate our motor vehicle industry. That is not surprising. There were eight or ten car plans in the 12 years before the 1984 plan was announced. Through the passenger motor vehicle plan the Government sought to encourage confidence where there had been uncertainty. We sought to foster a shared strategic vision after a decade of crisis containment. The plan set out to take an important Australian industry in difficulty into a position of competitive strength in the 1990s. The plan was from the outset a key element of the Government's approach to industry policy. It was established to provide the framework for the necessary transition from a high-cost domestically oriented industry towards a more competitive, internationally oriented industry supplying Australians-and the world-with better quality automotive products at more reasonable prices. The agenda for the industry in the 1990s set the following long term objectives: The industry needed to be able to prosper, with lower levels of government assistance. It must provide consumers with quality products, at reduced prices in real terms. The necessary restructuring needed to be carried out with minimum levels of disruption. While most, though not all, of these objectives are being met, they remain the objectives which the Government seeks to achieve through its PMV policy. To allow us to achieve the objectives we set up the Automotive Industry Authority (AIA) and asked it to embark on a strategy with the following elements: Rationalisation of the industry in terms of models and manufacturing groups. An increase in the competitiveness of the industry to become an area of strength of the Australian economy rather than weakness. Arrangements to accomplish the changes with minimum disruption and cost. These strategies remain as relevant today as they were in 1984 and the industry, with the active participation of the Automotive Industry Authority, has made substantial progress in implementing these strategies: After only three years there has been major rationalisation of producers. Holden's and Toyota are to enter into a joint manufacturing venture, while Nissan and Ford are investigating ways in which they, too, can integrate their manufacturing activities. By the end of next year I expect that the number of models produced in Australia will have reduced from 13 to eight. Average volume per model will have increased from 25,000 units to over 40,000. Automotive exports reached $755m in 1987, an increase of $290m or 63 per cent over the previous year. This is almost double the level of 1984. Other export programs which are planned or about to be implemented, promise a continuation of this growth in dollar terms over the next two or three years. Investment has also increased sharply. For example, in the vehicle sector, investment has risen from an average of $194m per annum in the period 1982 to 1984 to $503m per annum in the period 1985 to 1987. This shows confidence in the viability of Australian car manufacture into the next century. In the past four years, the industry has embraced the challenge of restructuring, in spite of a very weak vehicle market. The plan has enabled this to happen without major disruption to the people employed in it-with one notable exception: the closing down overnight of the Besco Batteries plant in Sydney. Even where there have been plant rationalisations to improve overall efficiency, these have been achieved with long term planning, and significant consultation with the work force. The terms of the plan have always provided for a mid-term review of its progress. That review has been carried out by the Automotive Industry Authority with the aim of ensuring that the plan's mechanisms are continuing to reinforce the strategy and promote achievement of the objectives as we move towards the 1990s. The review found that while good progress had been made there was room for improvement. It concluded that the better competitive environment for the Australian industry now enabled some acceleration of the original plan provisions to ensure that the incentives for adjustment are maintained. The review also found that there was room for improvement particularly in the objective of achieving more affordable cars for consumers. The level of prices of local production is a real concern to the Government. The initial plan had, as an objective, a reduction in real prices over time. This objective remains. The Australian consumer deserves to receive benefit as soon as possible, given the level of assistance afforded this industry. Resulting from that review, the recommendations made by the Authority and consultation with the industry and its unions, is a series of adjustments to the mechanisms of the plan to ensure that the plan remains on track and the objectives are achieved by 1992. The primary objective of the decision I am announcing today is to reinforce the original plan framework. But there is a secondary objective. The Government is also taking the opportunity provided by the improved competitive position of the Australian industry to ease the passage of the industry into the post-plan environment from 1993. An abrupt shift in the policy environment at the end of the plan would be in no-one's interest. The Government had considered announcing this decision in the May statement but due to the potential impact on the motor vehicle market of delaying the announcement we have decided it should be released without delay. I now turn to the specific refinements to the plan decided by the Government. Details are provided in an accompanying paper. I seek leave to have the remainder of the statement incorporated in Hansard because documents have been circulated containing the specific provisions. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Quota/Tariffs The major unforeseeable change since 1984 has been the fall in the value of the Australian dollar. International competitive pressure on the Australian car industry has slackened considerably. The Government intends to re-assert that pressure in several ways to restore the incentives for change originally envisaged. First, from today tariff quota protection for the Australian industry is abolished. These quotas, which have been in place in some form since 1975 were not to have been finally withdrawn until 1992. This decision will be recognised in Australia and abroad as a milestone for an industry getting back on its feet. In taking this historic decision the Government noted that this was a further demonstration of Australia's commitment to the current round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Second, tariff rates are to be reduced faster and further than originally announced. From today, the operative tariff of 57.5 per cent is to be reduced to 45 per cent. There will be further annual reductions from 1989 leading to a rate of 35 per cent in 1992. To retain competitive relativities, tariffs on light commercial vehicles and four wheel drives are to be reduced immediately from 35 per cent and 25 per cent respectively, to 20 per cent and will then be phased to 15 per cent by 1992. The Government is pleased that these reductions will be a direct and immediate contribution to containing costs for business and farmers. Local Content The Government has given particular attention to the local content arrangements of the current Plan. The Australian component producers, as a result of the Plan's stability, the depreciation of the Australian dollar particularly against the Japanese yen, and the 85 per cent local content scheme have found themselves in a very competitive position compared with imports. In addition there has been extensive company rationalisation which has created a significant number of sole suppliers in this sector of the industry. While some components companies have taken advantage of these benefits to improve their general performance a significant number have not. This lack of performance has come about because this sector has tended to experience less adjustment pressure from the Plan than other areas of the industry. The components sector should be subject to the same pressure for change as other parts of the industry. This will be achieved within the framework of the 85 per cent local content scheme. The system of prohibitive compounding penalties imposed on Plan producers for non-achievement of the 85 per cent local content target will be removed. They will be replaced from 1 January 1989, by a less stringent system of non-compounding penalties on imported content, in excess of the 15 per cent duty free concession available to plan producers. Beginning in 1989, these penalties will be the same as the duty rates applying to passenger motor vehicles. The additional flexibility to be provided to plan producers by this measure will add to the competitive pressure on component suppliers. Export Facilitation The aims of the export facilitation arrangements of the Plan are to facilitate produce rationalisation and to reduce component costs in Australia, as well as to open doors for exports of vehicles and components in their own right. The Car Plan seeks to give the Australian industry every opportunity to join in the increasingly integrated global market for vehicles and vehicle components. The Government values the export facilitation arrangements and the achievements which have already flowed from them. Major overseas markets have been prised open where they would otherwise have remained closed. Production runs for certain components have been increased towards world scale. Export facilitation will continue to be a feature of the Car Plan. Details of the changes proposed are in the accompanying paper. In essence there will be an expansion of the available credits of 5 per cent although these will only be earned at 50 cents of export credits for each dollar of exports. The changes we have made in this area partly restore the effect of this scheme envisaged in 1984. International Trading Practices The Government is committed to ensuring that the Australian industry not be disadvantaged by unfair trading practices by exporters to Australia. Accordingly, I have instructed the Automotive Industry Authority and the Australian Customs Service to intensify surveillance. Monitoring and Review These adjustments to the Plan have been designed to re-establish the competitive circumstances for the Australian industry originally envisaged in the Plan. The Government does not expect therefore, that there will be serious disruption of production or employment as a result of the adjustments. Nevertheless I have instructed the Automotive Industry Authority to monitor and report to me on the impact of the adjustments. Post-Plan Review Consistent with the Government's concern to provide a stable environment for longer term industry planning, I am confirming today the Government's intention to provide reasonable notice of the environment to be faced by the industry after the Plan ends in 1992. To provide the necessary period of notice, the Government envisages that a reference would be sent to the Industries Assistance Commission in 1991, for consideration by the Government early in 1992. However, it should be clear from the nature of the changes I have announced today that the present Plan-as adjusted-is very much a transitional mechanism designed from the outset to enable our automotive sector to move from the difficulties of the 1970s to a less protected, more open environment in the 1990s. New Zealand The Government is conscious of the potential implications of these changes for trans-Tasman rationalisation. The changes to motor vehicle arrangements in New Zealand recently announced by the New Zealand Government may have corresponding importance. Accordingly, I have spoken with Mr Caygill, my counterpart in New Zealand, and we have agreed to begin immediate discussions between officials about a range of issues. Implementation Arrangements Legislation will be necessary to effect the changes in tariff rates. The Government will be introducing the changes in the context of a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill as a matter of urgency. Alterations to administrative arrangements will be published in a forthcoming Australian Customs Notice. Conclusion In 1984, I announced a policy for this industry which set clear goals, and a means to achieve those goals. The automotive industry has accepted the challenges I put before it in 1984. Restructuring is taking place without signifi- cant disruption. Exports are increasing significantly. The industry has been investing heavily to enable it to compete with reduced levels of assistance. The measures I have announced today ensure that all we have so far achieved is not lost. And in addition, it creates the right environment to achieve those aspects of the Plan which have not yet been realised. CHANGES TO ASSISTANCE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY The broad outline of the changes is summarised below: Import Regime Tariff quotas have been abolished with effect from 13 April 1988. Also with effect from that date and subject to the passage of necessary legislation through Parliament: The previous tariff of 57.5 per cent on CBU passenger motor vehicles is to be 45 per cent and will be phased down to 35 per cent by 1 January 1992 along the following lines: 42.5 per cent-1 January 1989 40 per cent-1 January 1990 37.5 per cent-1 January 1991 35 per cent-1 January 1992 CKD packs and certain OE components will now attract the CBU tariff rates. The tariff on CBU light commercial vehicles and CBU and CKD 4WD vehicles (including amphibious vehicles) has been reduced immediately to 20 per cent. This tariff will be further reduced to 15 per cent in 1992 along the following lines: 19 per cent-1 January 1989 18 per cent-1 January 1990 17 per cent-1 January 1991 15 per cent-1 January 1992 The tariff on CKD light commercial vehicles packs has been reduced to 10 per cent immediately and the differential with the tariff for CBU light commercial vehicles will be maintained. Margins of preference applying to goods of Developing Country, Canadian and Forum Island origin remain unchanged. Goods of Papua New Guinean origin remain free of duty. Arrangements to apply to trade with New Zealand will be finalised following consultations with the New Zealand Government under CER. Local Content The present requirement for Plan producers to meet an average local content target of 85 per cent of the value of their production remains unchanged. Plan producers retain their right to import 15 per cent of the value of their production duty free. However, while the penalty duty for OE components not complying with the local content target will remain unchanged for 1988 it will be aligned with the CBU tariff rates from 1 January 1989, to be applied as necessary at the end of each calendar year, as follows: 42.5 per cent-1 January 1989 40 per cent-1 January 1990 37.5 per cent-1 January 1991 35 per cent-1 January 1992 Export Facilitation The export facilitation scheme for Plan producers is to be amended to provide that the upper limit for export credits under the scheme be increased to 20 per cent of value of production in 1988 with a credit earning of 50 cents in the dollar on the export performance above 15 per cent. The component producers' scheme is to be amended to provide that the upper limit to export credits under the scheme be increased to 25 per cent of original equipment sales in 1988 with a credit earning of 50 cents in the dollar on the additional export performance. The importers' scheme is to be maintained in its present form and extended for a period of two years beyond the end of the present Plan (i.e. two years beyond 31 December 1992). With effect from 1 January 1988 the current two year limit for carry forward of surplus local content is to be removed. The transfer of local content as well as the transfer of export credits between Plan producers is to be permitted. Under all export facilitation schemes export credits are to be available for use in the year they are earned and not be restricted by the previous 15 months validity limitation. Unfair International Trading Practices International prices for vehicles will be monitored to detect any unfair practices that may arise and enable appropriate action to be taken to combat any adverse effects on Australian industry. Post-Plan Review The new arrangements, with the exception of the export facilitation arrangements for importers, will apply until 31 December 1992 with arrangements after that time to be determined following an inquiry by the Industries Assistance Commission to be initiated in 1991. The industry will be given reasonable notice of any changes resulting from this inquiry. Further Information Details of the new arrangements are being incorporated in the Passenger Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Plan and will be the subject of a forthcoming Australian Customs Notice. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.14) —Let me say at the outset that the coalition parties welcome the Government's announcements today of changes to the passenger motor vehicle car plan. The changes are necessary because of the limited competition in the industry due to the devaluation of the Australian dollar and other factors reducing pressure for restructuring in the industry. They are also necessary because the plan of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), as he admits in the statement, has clearly failed to achieve the one objective that is of major importance to most Australians; that is, that the cost to Australians of a new Australian produced motor vehicle would fall. In other words, the Minister's proposal in the original plan, repeated today, is to deliver quality vehicles at reduced prices in real terms. It may very well be that the quality of Australian vehicles has been improving, but in the meantime prices have been going through the roof. I refer to a Press release which I issued on 23 January this year in which I stated: The Labor Government's actions are harming the interests of Australian consumers and removing the new car option from ordinary Australians. It now takes the average worker 46 weeks wages to buy a standard Commodore compared with less than 39 weeks wages as recently as 1985. That very much goes to the sort of thing that I was talking about this morning during the debate on the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority, namely, that frequently Senator Button says things with which the whole of the Senate, in fact most people in Australia, would agree. But the truth of the matter is that his Government fails to deliver, as indeed it has failed so very much to deliver in relation to the motor plan-that is, the position is not in accord with Senator Button's words or rhetoric about the Australian motor plan. Changes to the plan have become necessary. In essence the reason is to compensate for the failings of government policies and actions. This Government sent the dollar through the floor and kept interest rates high. The combined effect through higher component costs and reduced competition has resulted in car sales reaching the lowest levels in 25 years. Importers have been at their wit's end and car yards have been closing across the nation. In that same Press release that I mentioned earlier, issued on 23 January this year, I stated: Car prices have increased by about double the rate of increase of the Consumer Price Index over the last two years and sales of new motor vehicles have declined to the levels of the early 1960s. Industry figures show that about 447,000 new motor vehicles were sold in 1987 which is almost 250,000 less than in 1985. As a result, production of cars has also declined dramatically. Some of the other actions of this Government that contributed to this-no doubt Senator Button would attempt to exclude himself being responsible for these things but, as I said earlier today, he is after all third in the seniority of this Government; so he must be responsible for the collective decisions of this Government-included tax changes such as the fringe benefits tax and sales tax changes. Today's changes to the car plan are clearly therefore a response to the Government's own policy failings. The Opposition, unfortunately, has not had the benefit of examining the Australian Automotive Industry Authority review report and so it is difficult to comment on the appropriateness of the fine details of some of the changes. We have also not had the opportunity to consult with the industry, either the car makers or the component suppliers, to hear their concerns or the likely effects of the details. The Opposition has always supported the basic direction of the car plan and, as I have said, in general we support the changes the Minister has outlined. Today's announcement of changes to the sectoral plan invalidates many of the Government's policy undertakings and destroys any predictability about Government actions for industry. As I have said, in order to provide predictability to managers of industries, we have indicated that we will support sectoral plans when we come into office after the next election. But we have always made it clear that if circumstances arose such that it was necessary or desirable to change the plans in some way or other we would do so, but we will do so following consultation with relevant industries. However, I question whether the Minister or his Department has adequately consulted with the various elements of the affected industries, particularly as it appears that only the Minister and the Department have seen the Automotive Industry Authority report. The Minister's Press release describes it as stage 2 of the car plan. In fact, as I say, it is a change forced upon the Government by circumstances. The Minister says that this has all happened as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. The truth of the matter is that the dollar fell through the floor back in May 1985. Rather than the dollar devaluing, in fact its value has been increasing, revaluing upwards, in recent weeks. I wonder whether Senator Button thought that he had to get his plan out before the value of the dollar got up too high and he would not be able to go on with the plan which, no doubt, has been in his mind now for at least two and possibly three years. Senator Button frowns at that suggestion, but the truth of the matter is that, although he says that the plan is being introduced as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar, the massive devaluation of the Australian dollar occurred back in May 1985. So the Minister must have had this plan floating around as a possible option since that date. The truth of the matter is that the passenger motor vehicle industry has been waiting for, expecting and anticipating changes to the plan because of the devaluation of the dollar and especially its devaluation in relation to the Japanese yen. It is that devaluation which has made Japanese motor cars so expensive in Australia. The result of that has been that the tariff quotas have become unnecessary to protect Australian car manufacturers. The value of the Japanese yen and the value of the German mark in relation to the Australian dollar-the change in the relative value of both currencies has been massive-have forced up the price of cars imported from Japan and Germany to such a extent that Australian car manufacturers have not had to worry about tariff quotas. If I recall correctly, although the quota was at about 85 per cent, in fact about 87.5 per cent of motor vehicles being sold in Australia today are manufactured in this country. One matter I wish to raise with the Minister is the speculation about tariff changes. Let me outline to the Senate the speculation over tariff changes in recent months. During the election campaign in 1987 Senator Button commented that he was thinking of implementing across-the-board tariff cuts. His Treasurer, Mr Keating, disagreed with Senator Button, saying that across-the-board tariff cuts would not be implemented. No doubt Mr Keating had smelt the breeze of the election and decided that he would not have a bar of such a proposal. As I recall it, about Christmas time Mr Keating actually started to talk about across-the-board tariff cuts. I understand he floated a cut of about 25 per cent. In January this year Senator Button's Department originally started to talk about a 25 per cent across-the-board tariff cut. Then there was a Press leak or a Press release-I am not sure which-in which the Department indicated that it was considering a 20 per cent across-the-board cut. On the other hand, Treasury mooted the elimination of tariffs over a five-year period. The Centre for International Economics said that across-the-board cuts should be larger than 25 per cent. The Australian Chamber of Commerce welcomed Treasury's zero option. The Confederation of Australian Industry demanded consultation with business before changes occurred and said that it preferred an industry by industry approach. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said that decisions on protection would be made at some time during 1988. The National Farmers Federation called for a 20 per cent cut for all industries. The Australian Chamber of Manufactures called for a phasing in of tariff cuts coupled with a reduction in government imposed burdens. The Business Council of Australia argued that across-the-board cuts would be more acceptable when the cost of transport, regulation, taxation and inefficient labour practices was addressed. The Metal Trades Industry Association and the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Council of Australia warned of the impact of across-the-board cuts. That was not bad speculation on tariff cuts for the month of January. We then move to February of this year. The Metal Trades Federation of Unions threatened industrial action if across-the-board cuts were introduced. The Federated Chamber of Automotive Industries pleaded that the key elements of the car plan should remain unchanged, irrespective of tariff changes. During February Senator Button affirmed that tariff cuts would be made but said that the extent and means of cuts were still uncertain. Mr Dawkins claimed that Australia would become an `impoverished anachronism' if the Government ducked from protection reduction. Still in February, the Victorian Employers Federation said that it was unrealistic to expect Australian industry to invest against a background of changing tariffs. The Australian Chemical Industry Council believed that across-the-board cuts would lead to a drastic drop in investment within industry. The Australian Chamber of Manufactures revealed that some sectors of Australian industry had already begun to delay making investment decisions because of the uncertainty. Any sudden changes in tariffs would have a serious impact on industry confidence. Finally, during February Senator Button said that no industry would be exempt from tariff cuts. Somewhere along the line the Government began to realise that the speculation about tariff cuts was doing immense damage to industry in Australia because people were deferring investment decisions while the Government made up its mind what it was going to do. The deferral of investment decisions is causing drastic problems for this country at present because we need major investment in industry. Clearly the speculation about tariff cuts is harming that investment. During March there was very little speculation about tariff cuts, but this month Cabinet's structural adjustment committee has been talking about and leaking information to the Press or issuing Press releases-I am not sure which-about its consideration of various proposals. Last week it was talking about a 15 per cent across-the-board tariff cut. Over the weekend we read that it was talking about a 10 per cent tariff cut over a period of five years. Yesterday Mr Kerin, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, announced a comprehensive review of assistance programs for mining, agricultural and energy industries and referred to the $1.2 billion worth of assistance to industry. Apparently Treasury is now reported as favouring the elimination of all tariffs over a 10-year period. The significance of all of that is that this massive speculation has been creating great problems for Australian industry and has resulted in almost a cessation of investment in plant and equipment while the Government decides what it will do. As I said, yesterday Mr Kerin made his announcement about what will be happening in relation to primary industries. Today Senator Button made his announcement in relation to the motor vehicle plan. His announcement today is of, I think, a 21.7 per cent cut in tariff protection to this industry, and the abolition of tariff quotas. The abolition of tariff quotas is unimportant, as I have said, because as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar the quotas have not been used. However, the cut of tariff rates from 57.5 per cent to 45 per cent is significant, because other industries around the nation will be speculating as to what the May statement will contain for them. Senator Button —I'll bet. Senator LEWIS —Senator Button says, `I'll bet'. He knows as well as I do that that means that investment decisions will now be deferred until after the May statement. I call upon the Government to come out and tell industry now. They should not wait until the May statement. After all, Senator Button said in his Press release today that the Government had considered announcing this decision in the May statement but, because of the potential impact on the motor vehicle market of delaying the announcement, has decided to release it immediately. So should the Government immediately announce its decision in relation to all other industries. It should do so now. Admittedly, to this Government May may seem not to be a long time away. However, to those people whose future is dependent upon the Government's decisions in this area, it is a long time away. This damaging speculation will in no way be stopped by what Minister Kerin said yesterday and what Minister Button said today. The problem with the Labor Party simply lowering the protection is that it does not also free up the rigidities of the labour market and reduce some of the regulatory burden of the industry. I am not here particularly talking about the passenger motor vehicles industry, because there has been much movement in that industry. I congratulate the manufacturers, the employees and the union involved for their ability to try to be flexible. I am talking about the Government's speculation about across-the-board tariff cuts. The Government's problem is that there must be a freeing of the rigidities in the labour market. There must be an attack on the burden of Government regulations and a deregulation of the labour market to allow the benefits of a lowered protection regime to flow through the community. Under the Australian Labor Party Government, industry is being or would be squeezed by reductions, while in effect the rigid industry structures, which are becoming worse under this Government, have tied industry's hands behind its back. We call upon the Labor Party in government to move into the area of deregulating the labour market and making a substantial and worthwhile reduction in the burdens of regulations. For example, we point out that three months ago the Government announced that the Industries Assistance Commission would conduct an inquiry into government non-tax charges on industry. I understand that at this stage the Industries Assistance Commission still has not received terms of reference. In January I called on industry to identify the trade-offs which it needed to accompany any reductions in protection. There have been reports that Ministers favour such trade-offs. However, the only trade-off here is a watering down of the local content arrangements. Industry can only hope that some trade-offs will be announced in the Treasurer's May statement. When the Government announced this car plan in 1984 it set objectives, and today Senator Button has repeated the objectives, including the one objective to which I particularly referred, which is to provide Australian consumers with quality products at reduced real prices. In the light of current prices of motor vehicles in Australia, that objective must be seen not only to have failed but also to be quite laughable. It seems to me to be quite strange that with Australian car prices the way they are, with importers having considerable difficulty bringing in vehicles at a more modest price for Australians, it is a matter of great criticism of this Government that it has taken so long for it to get around to announcing this motor vehicle plan. It describes the plan as stage 2, but in effect it is a variation of the plan forced upon the Government by the crisis of the dollar devaluation, the Government's fringe benefits tax and sales tax, and the Government's maintaining and propping up of high interest rates in the community. I do not resile from my opening remarks that the coalition parties support the changes introduced by the Minister. However, we say that it has taken the Minister a long, long time to get around to introducing these changes. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.37) —I wish briefly to associate myself with the remarks just made by my colleague Senator Lewis in relation to Senator Button's ministerial statement this afternoon. In speaking to the motion of condolence in relation to the late Sir William McMahon yesterday afternoon, I said that perhaps the finest hour of Mr McMahon, as he then was, was when during the 1960s he waged a persistent and courageous battle against the heavily protectionist policies then being introduced into our industrial structure by the then Department of Trade and Industry and its then Minister. It is true that, as Senator Button said this afternoon, since that time the Australian car industry has been pretty much of a shambles. However, as my colleague Senator Lewis very cogently said, and gave a good deal of chapter and verse in so doing, the shambles did not end with the introduction of the present car plan. Nothing could better illustrate that conclusion than the fact that a major change in the parameters of that plan has been announced by the Minister this afternoon. As Senator Lewis said, it is the massive devaluation of the Australian dollar that has produced the outcome which today we are seeing the Government seeking to adjust by way of this ministerial statement. One might almost think that the devaluation of the Australian dollar came, so to speak, as a result of the intervention of some set of circumstances totally unrelated to the policies of the Govern-ment. Senator Chaney —An act of God, almost. Senator STONE —An act of God, as Senator Chaney has suggested. One might agree with that very much-that it has nothing to do with the policies of the present Government. Indeed, the Minister on page 6 on his statement said: The major unforeseeable change since 1984- that is, since the plan was put down- has been the fall in the value of the Australian dollar. I think that the Minister can fairly claim that the fall in the value of the Australian dollar at the time it occurred, and perhaps even more generally, was in a sense unforeseen in that it was not predicted at that time, but the fact is that it did not come about by chance. It came about because of the overwhelming lack of confidence which was induced in our foreign exchange markets by two circumstances. The first was by the generally growing loss of confidence in the competence of the present Government to conduct the affairs of this country, symbolised by the growing size of our overall balance of payments deficit; and, secondly, and in particular, by the shambles which arose in February 1985 at the time of the so-called MX missile crisis, which caused many people overseas to wonder what was going on in Australia and to think that perhaps it was time to remove from this country any or at least some of the investments they may previously have had here. I focus on the words `major unforeseeable change since 1984' simply to underline the point already made by Senator Lewis that the situation we are examining has not come upon us suddenly today or been due to an act of God, as Senator Chaney quite rightly suggested. It was due to the policies of the present Government. As Senator Lewis also said, that was just over three years ago. At the time I was writing a newspaper column for the Melbourne Herald and the Sydney Morning Herald. I have not looked up the precise date, but within six to 12 months of that event I wrote a newspaper column in which I pointed out to Senator Button, who was the Minister at the time, that certain consequences of the major fall in the value of our currency had occurred at that time fairly recently. I suggested that one of those major consequences was that he should move quickly-I underline the word `quickly'-to remove the quite fortuitous amount of additional protection which had been handed out to our industrial interests, including those in the car plan, by that event, but which was not in fact allowed for at the time when the plan was brought down because, as Senator Button's words today confirmed, it was unforeseeable. Giving the Minister, therefore, the extreme benefit of the doubt and saying that he might have taken six to 12 months to come to the same conclusion, one would have to say that he has wasted at least two years since that time in coming to the conclusions at which at last he seems to have arrived. Again, I associate myself entirely with Senator Lewis when he said that of course we welcome the changes which have been announced this afternoon. Our criticisms go not to those changes, but firstly to the fact that they represent not at all a triumph of the plan, a triumph of the adjustment process which the plan as such was supposed to bring about, but rather pure circumstance, and indeed a circumstance brought about by a failure of other Government policies. Only a few weeks ago on 23 March the Opposition raised a matter of public importance calling upon the Senate to note the failure of this Government to address the causes of the serious decline in Australian living standards. As I said in that debate-and Senator Chaney may also have referred to this same matter in that debate-one of the simple, clearly understand- able, easily recognisable symptoms of that failure to maintain living standards in this country has been the manner in which motor car prices have soared during the time this Government has been in office. As I pointed out at the time, this explosion in the price of motor vehicles between May 1984 and December 1987 has raised the price of a Ford Laser by 63 per cent. To put the best possible complexion on the matter from the Government's point of view, I would point out that in the same period the price of a Ford Falcon has risen by 43 per cent. I do not necessarily want to associate cause and effect between what we or anybody else might have said at that time about motor vehicle prices and the Government's announcement today, but we were pointing to a general sense of anger in the Australian community about what has happened to car prices. I am glad to see that the community's anger, with whatever help the Opposition has been able to give in expressing that anger here in this place, has forced the Government finally, at least two years later than it should have, to take account of these developments-and better late than never. I have to say from where I sit in this chamber that I particularly welcome the reduction in the level of protection that is now, belatedly, given on light commercial vehicles, and four-wheel drive vehicles. Among other things, those vehicles are particularly important to the small business community, including those quintessential small business people, the farmers. Given the mess which this Government has been making of our economy, I believe that it is certainly desirable that the protectionist playing field should be somewhat levelled in the way in which the Minister has announced today. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(3.48) —I do not want to speak for very long this afternoon, but I would preface my remarks by pointing to the figure which the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has given us in his paper `Mid-Term Review of the Car Plan'. In the paper he said that in 1987 automotive exports reached $755m. I draw attention to the fact that those of us who were expected to comment on this paper were given a copy of it at 1 o'clock. Here we are at this time, when it is not yet 4 o'clock, and we are expected to make some intelligent assessment as to where that document is heading us. We have seen several times recently that major Government documents have been submitted and debated on the same afternoon. The Australian Democrats reserve the right to comment further on this paper and the implicit adjustments to tariffs and various other matters implied in it when we have had more time to examine the details closely. The Button car plan, so-called, is good and bad in parts. It is good in the sense that perhaps for the first time we have seen an Australian government taking a rather longer view of planning some part of Australian society, the economy, than has been the case hitherto. But the plan is bad in the sense that this view is still incredibly short term and single-minded. Last night I had the fortune to hear a person who is visiting this Parliament from the Swedish Commission for the Future. That gentleman in looking at Swedish health models, society models as they would impinge on health in Sweden, spoke of mid-term and long term planning. In Sweden, evidently, mid-term planning means looking 10 to 15 years into the future. Compare that with the Button car plan. Senator Chapman —I'll bet they know what is going to happen then, too. Senator COULTER —It is not a question of knowing what is going to happen, Senator. It is a matter of looking at various alternatives, intelligently planning our future and then deciding which of those alternative futures we wish to bring into existence and how we are going to do it. That is a very different thing from simply foretelling the future. The honourable senator's interjection is rather interesting because it indicates that people on his side of the Senate misunderstand the prime purpose of the Australian Commission for the Future, which of course should be doing the same thing as the Swedish Commission has been doing-namely, opening up options for public debate so that the people themselves can determine what sort of a future they want. If one is going to do that and is going to look at some factor or some part of the overall economy, one necessarily must look at that part in context. That is what has not been done under the Button car plan. I briefly make the observation that when one decides to use a car, one is essentially deciding part of the transport system of the country. One is deciding something about the use of resources in that country, including non-renewable resources, both in the manufacture of the car and in its use. One is deciding something about the health of people who live particularly in urban areas. Several years ago a Senate select committee found that 70 per cent of air pollution over urban areas in Australia was caused by private motor vehicles. One is also, when deciding whether or not to buy a car and whether or not to support a car plan, or what sort of car plan one should support, making some decision about environmental damage, particularly in urban areas and especially large urban centres where we have seen the development of major freeways which run right across developed areas, interfering with people's lives and causing considerable cost to the community both in terms of direct and measurable dollar effects and also in terms of effect on health and the quality of life. If we were to develop a comprehensive car plan in Australia we would need to look at all those factors together, and we would be looking at where we might be, if certain courses of action are taken, 10, 15 or 20 years down the track. We would be determining through a process of public consultation and debate where we want to go and what other alternatives are available to us. What we have in this plan is simply a recognition that part of the Australian economy was in financial difficulty and that we had to do something to correct that in the short run. What do we have? According to Senator Button's paper, we have reduced the number of models in Australia from 13 to eight, and the average volume per model has gone up from 25,000 to 40,000. Multiplying those figures out, I find that production in Australia has in fact fallen from 325,000 units to 320,000 units. So while there may have have been some improvement in overall efficiency, we have not substantially lifted the number of cars being manufactured. As I indicated earlier, nowhere in this plan is there any emphasis on the other consequences of car purchase and car use. Several years ago an excellent American study looked at the health effects of car use. Translating its conclusion, and this goes back to 1978, to the Australian situation we find that the cost in Australia of car ownership, in health effects alone, was roughly $1,000 a year. The majority of that was related to accidents-deaths and injuries on the road, earnings forgone and the costs of patching up, often rather incompletely, the consequence of motor vehicle accidents. But, in addition to that, there were a substantial number of cancers resulting from the unburnt hydrocarbons and the interaction of those unburnt hydrocarbons with nitrogen oxides and other materials which come out of car exhausts, as well as the general respiratory effects of air pollution. The Opposition has often extolled the virtues of the market system and has said, as I heard Senator Stone say a moment ago, that we need a more level playing field. By all means let us have a level playing field. Let those who generate the costs bear those costs, and let us put an impost of approximately $1,000 on every vehicle sold in Australia, that money to go towards those costs borne by the community in terms of hospital expenses and the other health costs directly related to the use of private motor vehicles. I just wonder whether we would then consider cars to be our best means of transportation. Remember that we are not in the broader context talking about cars; we are talking about the need of people to have access to transport in order to move themselves and their families from one place to another for essentially human purposes. The car is only one way of achieving that end. Senator Button has stated that we earned $755m from exports in 1987. What was the cost in Australia of petroleum imports in 1987? I have had people running around in the last couple of hours trying to get the correct figure, but the best figure I can come up with-it is in the same ballpark as the figure mentioned by Senator Parer earlier this afternoon-is that $1.2 billion was spent last year on importing oil into this country. So clearly as a result of our using motor cars we have spent far more on importing oil to run those motor cars than we have made in profits from exports. I suggest that if the car plan had included an element which laid some emphasis on fuel efficiency and we had succeeded in increasing through the plan the efficiency of motor cars in Australia by as much as 20 per cent, we would be saving far more on imports and our balance of trade would benefit to a much greater extent than is now the case under the plan as we have it. Several years ago when this Labor Government came to power it held a National Economic Summit Conference. I put before that Summit Conference a plan in just those terms. Briefly, its aim was to increase substantially the price of petroleum and to pay that money back to car purchasers who bought fuel efficient cars. It would be paid on a sliding scale, depending on the efficiency of the car. That would have been a rational way of linking the need for increased fuel efficiency with a decreased dependence upon foreign imports, along with decreased air pollution, decreased effects on health and an improvement in the quality of transport in Australia. I notice that it is reported in the Australian Financial Review that a week ago today the United States Finance Committee recommended that in the US a tax be imposed, on a sliding scale, of between $500 and $3,850 per vehicle, depending upon fuel efficiency and starting with all vehicles with a fuel efficiency of less than 22 1/2 miles per US gallon. If the Americans, who probably have more known reserves of oil than Australia, reckon it is valuable to encourage the American car manufacturers to make cars which are more fuel efficient and so save foreign exchange, and incidentally save a non-renewable resource which we are rapidly running out of, how much more sensible would it be for Australia to follow along the same sorts of lines and substantially increase the price of vehicles, whether imported or Australian manufactured, if they do not meet certain efficiency requirements? As I say, that concept brings together a number of things which this plan does not. The plan is very simple and looks at one thing in isolation. An interest in ecology teaches a person that one of the basic laws is that everything is connected to everything else. One cannot twiddle the price of cars or support for a car industry without there being a rippling effect through other aspects of society, such as health, quality of life, interference with other transport modes, and the like. During the life of a car, the figures show, it uses approximately 10 times as much energy as goes into its production. Some people might argue that to turn over car stock, to make new cars which are more fuel efficient, may involve an increase in energy use and a decrease in efficiency. The figures quite clearly show that it would be very much in our interests to turn over our car stock and, as rapidly as possible, achieve a much more efficient form of transport. In conclusion, I simply say that it is good to see that the Government, in the car plan, has looked a few years ahead, but it is bad that it has not looked far enough ahead in terms of the reserves of oil in Australia. We can speculate, as was done during Question time this afternoon, about the prospectivity of Australia. We may discover more oil somewhere near Timor. However, that in itself will be a limited resource. It will run out. Somewhere further down the track we will have to change this means of transport. It would be intelligent to take a much longer term, comprehensive view, to look not just eight or 10 years ahead, as this plan has done, but 10, 15 or 20 years ahead, to see what sort of transport modes would be sensible, supportable, economically desirable, healthy and equitable for the community, and make that view the basis for a plan which would integrate planning for cars and transport with all other aspects of Australian planning. Senator McMULLAN(Australian Capital Territory)(4.03) —In analysing the statement made today by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, entitled `Mid-Term Review of the Car Plan', it is necessary to take a very brief look at the context in which the initial 1984 car plan was introduced. On coming to office in 1983 the Labor Government and Senator Button as the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as he then was, were confronted with the crisis in the Australian manufacturing industry. There are a variety of reasons for this which are too far-ranging and comprehensive to look at today. Three require brief mention: we were then in the middle of a domestic recession, with all the implications that that has for consumption and therefore for purchasers of motor vehicles; we had an overvalued Australian dollar which had a significant impact on the capacity of the Australian motor vehicle industry to compete; and we had an appalling industrial relations policy and, as a consequence, an appalling industrial relations record. After addressing the Government's promised first priority in that area, which was the steel industry, Senator Button turned his attention to the car plan-more correctly, the passenger motor vehicle plan. The announcement which has been made today is a further stage in the development of that 1984 plan. It is not a change to the plan as such. A mid-term review was always intended and clearly understood. It is an adjustment, as a consequence of that mid-term review, to restore the original effects of the car plan. In his May 1984 statement, amongst other things the Minister said: This government is firmly committed to the continuance of a viable motor vehicle manufacturing industry in Australia. It is an industry which employs a large number of Australians, which has nurtured managerial and engineering skills, and which contributes significantly to gross domestic product. He also said: It is the Government's task to facilitate the process of change, and to ensure that it is accomplished with minimum disruption and cost. Further in that statement he said: Government policy since the mid-1960's has been increasingly characterised by short-term crisis containment, lack of direction and inward-looking policies. In setting out to change that, he outlined the principles that underlined the 1984 strategy. I want to refer to those before analysing the consequences of this mid-term review. On that occasion he said: There are a number of principles which have guided the Government in considering an appropriate strategy: 1. There must be a process of adjustment over a period of years. 2. The need to concentrate on the strengths of the industry with a view to encouraging exports. 3. The encouragement of rationalisation and cost reduction. 4. The necessity for greater integration of the Australian industry. He then went on to say: If the strategy is implemented with firmness and commitment, the local manufacturing industry should be considerably more efficient in the 1990's than it is today. This section of the statement is significant in terms of today's comments: That efficiency should be reflected in- amongst other things- an ability to compete without quota restrictions on imports . . . an industry which has concentrated its efforts towards its strengths, and is not only more competitive against imports, but is also an active exporter . . . Those statements of objective, measured against performance and against what is contained in this review, indicate the substantial success of the car plan and the appropriateness of the changes arising from this mid-term review. In the last four years substantial changes in the direction envisaged by the 1984 plan have developed. For example, statistics indicate that the imports share of the passenger motor vehicle market has fallen from about the 20 per cent level that it was in 1984 under the quota system to approximately 11 per cent now, which is significant in the decisions concerning quotas made in this statement. The consequence for the Australian passenger motor vehicle industry is significant and positive. As Senator Button has said, exports have doubled since 1984. They increased by 63 per cent in 1987 to the very important level of $755m. A matter that cannot be underestimated is the significance of that increase and the contribution to that all important problem confronting the Australian economy, the balance of payments. Senator Button also referred to the expectation of a continuation of that increase in exports. Of course, that is classically illustrated by the agreement by the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd to export 40,000 Capri model sports cars to the United States. It is interesting to know the reasons underlying it-the indications from the United States industry of a perception of competence in the Australian industry in low volume production of specialised vehicles. That is a portent for the future of great positive benefit and significance to the continuing development of the Australian motor vehicle industry. It is important to the industry that the Capri is a success. I am sure that other senators will have seen the Press reports of the recent motor show in which the Capri was rather unfortunately titled `a smash hit'. It is not exactly the description that one would usually envisage being most appropriate for a motor vehicle, but it was certainly very warmly received. There is now speculation that the 40,000 target may be exceeded and that it may have an increasing role in the very important United States sports car market. Those two questions of import reduction and export increase which are fundamental in analysing all economic and industry decisions in Australia in the 1980s are particularly important. Senator Button also referred, and I will not repeat his comments, to the important rationalisation that is going ahead-the Holden-Toyota rationalisation, the Nissan-Ford rationalisation and the optimism that by the end of 1989 the number of models released will have reduced from 13 to eight and average volume will have increased from 25,000 to 40,000. The additional matter to which I refer, which I think is of particular importance and which has been a constant theme in all my contributions on economic policy since coming to the Senate is the significance of the investment decisions that have been made. Average investment has increased sharply from $194m per annum in the triennium 1982-84 to $503m per annum in the triennium 1985-87. Investment in this very important industry has more than doubled and nearly tripled. It is important to note that the smooth process of rationalisation that has taken place in the car industry has occurred in times of what we can politely call severe market stress. The first signs of improvement in the domestic market for motor vehicles are now emerging, and the industry, on the basis of its increased efficiency, on the basis of its increased competitiveness and in particular on the basis of those significant investment decisions, is well placed to take advantage of any improvement in the domestic motor vehicle market and in particular to maintain its increased market share of that increasing market. I refer briefly also to the objective that Senator Button outlined in 1984 concerning quotas and the ability to compete without quota restrictions. Our success in achieving that objective is clearly evident in the fact that quotas are being abolished because, due to the increased competitiveness of the industry, they have not been used. They are no longer relevant as a protective measure for the Australian motor industry. As I understand it, the tender premiums over the last two years have been zero and there have been no over-quota imports. As I have said previously, the import share has fallen from 20 per cent to 11 per cent, and that is reflected in the abolition of quotas. It is important that mechanisms be put in place to identify any possible exploitation of the changes that have been made, and those mechanisms are outlined in the Minister's statement and will be incorporated in the activities of the Australian Customs Service. As I have said, these changes are really adjustments to restore the original effect of the plan. They are important in terms of providing continuity and allowing planning based on that continuity because of the long term nature of the investment decisions that we need to continue to make in the Australian motor vehicle industry. It appears on the basis of the analysis that I have been able to make and on the preliminary figures that have been made available that, taking into account all the changes that have affected the competitiveness of the Australian motor vehicle industry, including the changing value of the Australian dollar, particularly compared to the yen, a safety margin has been built into these changes. That is, even after the changes are made, on the best evidence available, the Australian motor vehicle industry should still be more competitive than it was in 1984. In drawing together the comments I have made so far, I want to emphasise four highlights. These changes alter the mechanisms to achieve the objectives of the plan, but they make no fundamental change to its objectives. They maintain and sustain the necessary review procedures and they contain the mechanisms to identify unfair policies and the exploitation of changes in the quota system which might emerge. I take this opportunity to make very briefly some general comments about this statement in the context of wider industry policy. A government confronting pressure for change to industry policy, as the Government was with regard to this industry in 1984 and 1988, and as were previous governments, is faced with three broad options within a continuum of policy options. One is to try to preserve the industry in aspic, in line with what might be summarised as the McEwen policy, which has had its advocates. They are rarely heard now and it seems to be essentially discredited, but it is important not to forget that the attempt to implement that policy has been the genesis of the problems with which we are struggling now. There is the alternative, which I might summarise as the back of the axe policy, of removing all the protection, getting rid of what are perceived by the people in the relevant ivory towers as uncompetitive industries and hoping the resources will be transferred to some more appropriate industry, which is highlighted by what was referred to earlier as the Treasury zero tariff option. I have always had the view that the first economist to come forward to advocate that unemployment should increase as a measure of economic policy should be sacked. That would increase unemployment by one and show him or her exactly what it felt like, and the next economist who wanted to make that representation could come forward if he or she were brave enough. The third alternative is to adopt a policy of planned change. This is obviously preferable from a social point of view, and that is a matter that could be debated at great length. But I want to refer to its economic advantages. I think option 2, even if the outcome is desirable-and in many instances that is arguable-fails to comprehend the cost of precipitate and unplanned change; from the disruption that leads to loss of production to the increased unemployment, with what we all know, with what all the evidence shows but which seems continually to be ignored: the cost to revenue of unemployment and the cost in expenditure of unemployment. That is, we receive less tax and we have to spend more money. It was one of the underlying features of the blow-out of the deficit in 1982-83 that unemployment was increasing. That led to an enormous blow-out in the deficit because of the cost of welfare payments and the falling tax base. We have today in the announcement of this review a symbol of mode 3. Change is needed; everybody understands that. Let us look at the effective rate of assistance as the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) has examined it for Australian manufacturing in general and for this industry in particular. The IAC has assessed the effective rate of assistance to the passenger motor vehicle industry at 250 per cent, to the transport equipment sector generally at 66 per cent, and to the manufacturing industry in general at 19 per cent. Conversely, it can be said that the 19 per cent level of industry protection could be reduced to 13 per cent if the special rates applying to the passenger motor vehicle and textile, clothing and footwear industries were excluded. That would bring us very close to the international norm. As everybody knows, we are competing in a declining tariff regime with far fewer non-tariff barriers than many of our competitors. The other point I want to make in terms of general industry policy is that Australia needs this industry. The back of the axe strategy also ignores the significant contribution that this industry makes to other industries through its demand for their products and through the development of new techniques that it brings forward, particularly with the enhanced competitiveness of the industry in 1988 as a consequence of the car plan and the competitive pressures. It has been, for example, one of the catalysts to introducing total quality control into Australian manufacturing, to the introduction of a just in time system and to instilling quality as a factor in Australian management. It has been developing significant and enhanced linkages between Australian firms and other, particularly Japanese, firms, and, through that, it has been expediting the transfer of ideas which then flow on to other industries. In conclusion, in welcoming and supporting the mid-term review of the car plan, I simply say that this review is just another stage in what is comprehensively the most effective process of structural adjustment in Australian economic history. It does not throw away the substantial achievements of 1984 to 1988, but it provides pressure for and incentives to encourage change. This is another symbol of the fact that must be recognised by all involved in Australian economic management-the fact that planned change in industry policy can work and must be made to work. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(4.19) —At the outset, I commend, as have my coalition colleagues, the announcement by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, relating to the motor vehicle manufacturing plan. In particular, I commend the decision which has been taken to abolish as from today tariff quotas on imported vehicles and to reduce as from today the tariff rate on passenger motor vehicles from the present 57 1/2 per cent to 45 per cent, with a further staged reduction to 35 per cent by 1992. Similarly, as from today the tariff on light commercial vehicles will be reduced from 35 per cent to 25 per cent, with further staged reductions to 15 per cent by 1992. Those decisions are certainly very welcome. However, it should also be recognised that this is not really a giant step forward. All these decisions do is correct the course of the operation of the plan which had been substantially altered by the massive depreciation in the value of the Australian dollar since the plan was first implemented in 1984. Of course, in that context not only does it reflect the failure of the Button plan to be sufficiently flexible over that period to take account of changes in the international economic environment and Australia's place in it, but also it reflects the dismal failure of the present Labor Government's overall economic management. The other comment that is relevant to this announcement is that the decision is really much too late. It is some time now since this economy and the car industry in particular experienced the very detrimental effects of the massive depreciation in the value of the Australian dollar. On my return to this Parliament after the last election in my first participation in the Senate Estimates committees last October I asked the Minister about the effects of the depreciation on the operation of the motor vehicle plan. At that time I suggested that changes should be made and further immediate reductions in protection should be undertaken to restore to the plan the balance which had been destroyed by that depreciation. It is now some six months later that the Government is taking this initiative. As I said, it is really much too late. It is also not a giant step because it leaves the motor vehicle manufacturing industry with more than three times the level of protection of the rest of manufacturing, excluding the other heavily protected sector, textile, clothing and footwear. Even by 1992, the level of protection of the motor vehicle industry will still be more than double that for the rest of manufacturing industry, again excluding the other heavily protected sector, the textiles, clothing and footwear industry. So while there is a reduction from the present situation where the effective rate of protection is something in excess of four times the rate of protection applied to other sectors of manufacturing industry, it is still a somewhat marginal reduction. Obviously the long term goal of any effective industry plan must be to have the industry capable of surviving and competing at a level of protection which matches that of manufacturing industry as a whole. These failures in the plan highlight the total inadequacy of central planning in a competitive international economic environment. The failure of the plan thus far must be sheeted home as a direct responsibility of this Labor Government. The depreciation of the dollar is the direct responsibility of this Government. Its failure adequately to manage the Australian economy and its failure to restrain wage increases and therefore cost increases on our domestic economy have been a major factor contributing to that depreciation of our dollar. The Government introduced a fringe benefits tax which had the effect of increasing the real cost of motor vehicles, particularly to the business sector. We saw the introduction of a sales tax at the level of 30 per cent on some segments of the motor vehicle industry, which further increased the costs of motor vehicle products. Senator Maguire —Are you going to abolish the fringe benefits tax? Senator CHAPMAN —As Senator Maguire would be aware, it is the policy of the Opposition to abolish Labor's devastating fringe benefits tax. He ought to be aware of that. It is this Government which is responsible for the economic recession which this country has experienced over the last year or so in particular and the consequent fall in living standards which all Australians have experienced, which has made it much more difficult for them to afford new motor vehicles. As a consequence of that, demand for motor vehicles has fallen while, because of the cost impost which this Government has inflicted on the industry, prices have soared. Indeed, between 1985 and 1987 the average price of locally manufactured motor vehicles increased by some 49.8 per cent while that of imported vehicles increased by 69.5 per cent. Of course, this is way above the rate of inflation in this country, which was something less than 10 per cent per annum over that period, although it should be noted that the rate of inflation is itself double that of our trading partners. So it is no wonder that the average Australian cannot afford to buy new motor vehicles. These factors have combined to have a devastating effect on car sales, which at the moment are experiencing a 20-year low. In 1985 some 510,000 motor vehicles were sold in Australia but by 1986 the figure had plummeted to 400,000 and it is estimated to have fallen further to about 340,000 in 1987. As a result of this dramatic fall in the sales of motor vehicles some 600 dealers have disappeared from the industry over the five years of this Labor Government; and how many more thousands of employees of those 600 dealers have lost their jobs and been placed on the employment market and left to survive on unemployment benefits? It has also been estimated that in the next few years, if there is no change, some 3,000 dealers could go out of business and that obviously will have a devastating effect on employment in the industry. So while the high costs caused by the protection of this industry may have protected a few jobs on the manufacturing side they have quite clearly destroyed many more jobs in the marketing and servicing side of the industry. As a consequence of declining sales, the changeover time for the average buyer has increased from 3.5 years to five years while for fleet buyers it has gone up from 2.5 years to 3.5 years-yet another indication of the way in which the effects of the policies of this Government have made it much more difficult for people to purchase motor vehicles. The initiatives which the Minister has announced today, particularly in regard to the reduction in tariffs and the abolition of quotas, certainly will allow prices to stabilise between now and 1990, but people ought not to expect too much from this announcement and expect prices to fall because importers are still recovering from the currency losses which they have experienced over the past couple of years as a result of the combined effects of the operation of this plan and the massive depreciation of the Australian dollar. Certainly, to get the motor vehicle industry back into a thriving, prosperous situation this Government needs to take further initiatives which would include the abolition of the fringe benefits tax so that the business demand for vehicles will increase. Of course, we also need economic management which will ensure a stable economy and the absence of further fluctuations in the value of our Australian dollar. Despite the very welcome aspects of this announcement, I believe there is one significant shortcoming in the Minister's statement and that is that it announced only a minor modification of the local content requirements under the plan. That minor change is that the penalty duties previously applied to non-compliance with the 85 per cent local content requirement for Australian manufacturers are to be replaced by a penalty which will be somewhat less severe in being aligned with the completely built up unit tariffs. That is, from January, a tariff of 42.5 per cent will apply on any shortfall below the 85 per cent content plan and by 1992 a tariff of 35 per cent will apply. I am disappointed that the local content requirement itself has not been reduced below the current 85 per cent level to 80 per cent or perhaps even 75 per cent. There is no doubt that the high level of local content specified in the plan has led to the continuation of the production of an extensive range of components in Australia, some at very high cost relative to equivalent imports. So, by continuing a high local content requirement, the Government is continuing to make an important contributing factor to the lack of international competitiveness of the Australian industry. The Government boasts about the opportunities for exports which its plan has allegedly created, both of components and completely built up vehicles, as Senator McMullan mentioned a few moments ago when he referred to the Capri. But it is the export facilitation provisions relating to the local content requirement which, in effect, provide a subsidy to support such export activity. The magnitude of the subsidy available to exports is equivalent to the cost disadvantage of the domestic content which is resourced from imports. Of course, in Australia this disadvantage, and hence the available export subsidy, is high. Evidence suggests that the majority of Australian automotive exports would not be viable in the absence of this subsidy. That makes sense. If components and, indeed, completely built up motor vehicles cannot compete on the Australian market without heavy levels of protection, how can they compete on foreign markets, open to free competition, without subsidies? It is very clear that those export markets are being developed largely as a result of the subsidy-a subsidy which is being paid by Australian consumers, because it is the extra cost of motor vehicles which Australian consumers have to pay as a result of the protection regime in place that, through the export facilitation scheme, provides the subsidy to overseas consumers to buy Australian products. What sort of nonsense is that, that Australian consumers ought to be providing a subsidy for overseas consumers to buy our products at a price cheaper than we can buy them ourselves? When the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) looked at the effect of local content schemes and export facilitation, it reached the conclusion that the local content scheme is unlikely to contribute to the development of an efficient vehicle industry in Australia. The complexity of the scheme means that it is extremely difficult to ascertain its effect on the component producing sector. It is fair to say, as far as the Australian components industry is concerned, that we have still got a long way to go not only in terms of the cost competitiveness of those components but also in terms of their quality. Some component manufacturers in Australia have, under the plan, taken the initiative of developing the capitalisation, technology-base and management skills needed to supply high quality components and to keep up with frequent model changes. But it is also fair to say that many others have not taken that initiative. Indeed, criticism has been levelled by car manufacturers about the quality of some local components, the lack of constant supply, the failure of some component suppliers to adapt their technology to the latest flexible car manufacturing processes, and industrial relations problems within the car component manufacturing industry. All of those factors continue to contribute to the lack of competitiveness of this sector of the industry. The effective monopoly provided for many local component producers by the 85 per cent local content rule has contributed to many of the problems of the industry in recent years. That is why it would have been a very welcome additional decision if the Government had eased those local content requirements. One of the problems that the motor vehicle manufacturing industry in Australia faces is the significant degree of oligopoly with regard to the supply of components. BTR Nylex is virtually the sole manufacturer in Australia for about 30 per cent of the components of a new car, including gearboxes, transmissions, universal joints, rear axles and drive and tail shafts. Through its half share in Pilkington ACI Ltd, BTR Nylex also has a slice of the monopoly manufacture of car glass in Australia. A reduction in the local content minimum would allow car makers to source more of their componentry offshore and give BTR Nylex a bit more competition. As I said, the IAC concluded that the `local content scheme is unlikely to contribute to the development of an efficient vehicle industry'. This raises the question of whether an internationally competitive passenger vehicle industry can be encouraged if domestic component production continues to be assisted through such a local content scheme. If a decision is taken that it cannot, the question that needs to be considered is how and over what time frame a local content scheme should be dismantled. This statement today has given the Government a marvellous opportunity to take at least some initial steps in reducing that local content requirement and begin to abandon the local content scheme in the same way as it has indicated it is abandoning the high levels of tariffs and quotas as a means of protecting the domestic industry from international competition. There are also questions to be raised about the efficacy of recent intervention designed to facilitate achievement of the structure specified by the Government through the plan as being appropriate for the vehicle industry. Industry structure, including the scale of operation of individual firms, is not an independent causal factor influencing an industry's competitive position, but rather the outcome of the demand and cost conditions facing producers. The existing structure of the motor vehicle manufacturing industry, involving low volume production of a relatively large number of models, can be seen as an appropriate response to consumer demand for a differentiated range of vehicles, given the stringent restrictions imposed on imports since the mid-1960s. So penalty provisions which this Government has provided to discourage low volume production have the error of focusing attention on one outcome of the industry's lack of competitiveness rather than the fundamental cause, which is the high and made-to-measure assistance which has been given to this industry in the past, which has continued until today and which in some respects will continue beyond today, particularly with regard to high local content and, indeed, a continuing level of tariffs which, as I said earlier, is several times that of the manufacturing industry in general. Whether the structure specified is appropriate can be questioned. Indeed, the remaining years of this assistance package should raise that question in particular. Whether in fact the scale of producers' operations ought to be the focus for assistance arrangements after 1992 should be examined very closely. There is an alternative arrangement, and that would be to concentrate on the overall level of assistance to be provided to the industry and leave the restructuring response to the industry itself. Certainly this statement goes part of the way down that track, by getting rid of quotas and leaving the major element of protection in the form of tariffs. But these other penalties will still apply if the restructuring which the Government regards as appropriate to be introduced is not introduced by the various segments of the industry. There are other initiatives which this Government needs to take if we are to see a successful, profitable and prosperous Australian motor industry. The first of these is the need to improve Australian manufacturers' share of the worldwide export market on a genuine competitive basis, not on the basis of the subsidies which the export facilitation scheme offers and to which I referred earlier. There is also the need to rationalise componentry so that components can be shared between the various vehicle manufacturers. There also needs to be further development of the just in time system of manufacturing aimed at maximising plant-- Senator Watson —We've got it. Senator CHAPMAN —As Senator Watson says, we have got it, but it needs further encouragement and further development. It certainly is not yet being exploited to its fullest; indeed, it is often hindered by industrial unrest and disputation on the part of less than cooperative industry unions. So we need to give more encouragement to that just in time scheme to improve plant efficiency, inventory management and decreasing on-site stockpiling. The other initiative which needs to be developed further is that of total quality control designed to improve overall quality rates at all stages of product manufacture. An additional benefit which this industry could well use to improve its efficiency and profitability would be the adoption of flexible manufacturing processes. The relative lack of investment by some sectors of the component supply industry in flexible manufacturing technology is to be deplored. If Australia is to have a really efficient and prosperous industry, that aspect of manufacturing must be introduced in greater degree to compensate for our small domestic market and thereby reduce the cost inefficiencies of the industry in Australia. It is also important that the Government, apart from taking initiatives such as those which have been announced today, should have a long, hard look at their imposts and how they detrimentally affect the industry. I have already referred to the fringe benefits tax and the excessive levels of sales tax which are applied to this industry. Certainly, it is issues such as these to which the Government must give attention if we are to have a further beneficial effect on the cost structure of motor vehicles and a further beneficial effect, therefore, on the number of vehicles sold in Australia through a cheaper price being available to the consumer. In conclusion, we really must ask the fundamental question whether a continuation of a high level of assistance, which will continue notwithstanding the announcement made by the Minister today, is really consistent with this Government's economy-wide objective of encouraging the development of a more internationally competitive industry structure. While this statement is to be welcomed to the degree to which it does significantly reduce the levels of excessive protection which apply to this industry, there are a number of other initiatives which the Government and the industry must take if we are indeed to have that internationally competitive industry which will not only provide cheap, high quality cars to the Australian consumer, but also will allow the industry to compete on the international markets without the need for any subsidies. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.44) —Earlier this afternoon the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) made a very significant statement in the context of a mid-term review of the car industry plan. I enter this debate as a person who has had a background in manufacturing. I find that all too often critics of manufacturing in Australia speak in terms of platitudes or with tunnel vision in that they do not direct their attention to some of the underlying conditions in the environment that manufacturers have to cope with in Australia. For that reason a lot of that criticism is quite invalid. I would like to record my satisfaction that the Minister has made no significant changes to what I refer to as the 85 per cent local content rule. It is true that there have been some changes at the fringes. I believe that this rule is a major plank in supporting what I term the bedrock of the industry, most particularly the parts and bearings manufacturers who rely on Australian motor manufacturers for their existence. It must be understood by us that changes to the car plan affect not only the big companies such as General Motors, Ford Australia, Toyota and so on. They also affect many more companies which are involved in component manufacture and part supply in Australia. I know from personal experience in northern Tasmania that this is an area where component factories provide much needed regional employment. I speak particularly of ACL Bearing Co., part of the former Repco complex, which has an impressive export record. It is a record that could well be followed by many others in this field. The car industry therefore provides a wide input into many areas of light and heavy manufacturing throughout Australia. The Minister said early in his statement that one of the long term objectives of the plan is that it must provide consumers with quality products at reduced prices in real terms. Unfortunately this objective is a long way from being realised, largely because of both the economic and taxation policies pursued by this Federal Government. Since coming to power in 1983, the Labor Government has made decisions which have severely hit the automotive industry. I say this mindful of Senator Button's very genuine commitment to rejuvenating this sector of the Australian economy, but the Senate must realise that other Ministers have, to some extent, been pulling in other directions so far as the health of the motor vehicle industry is concerned. For example, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) have introduced increases to sales tax and the horrendous fringe benefits tax, both of which have been body blows to the health of the car industry. In fact, last year we saw new vehicle sales slump by 15 per cent. Admittedly the Australian and global economies share some of the blame but, as other speakers have said, we must look to the fringe benefits tax because company fleet passenger vehicle sales, a vital market for car makers, have slumped over 45 per cent since the end of 1985. The fringe benefits tax has been roundly criticised not only by the coalition but also by many industry groups, particularly in the automotive field. I think it is a pity that while the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, has been trying so hard to assist the consolidation and efficiency of the industry, at the same time some of his colleagues, such as Mr Keating and Senator Walsh, have developed a taxation policy which really has humbled the sector. I note that Senator Button has said that tariffs on light commercial vehicles and four-wheel drive vehicles are to be reduced immediately from 35 per cent and 25 per cent respectively to 20 per cent and this will be phased down to 15 per cent by 1992. I think that this will assist primary producers who need small trucks and other similar off-road vehicles as essential tools for their work. I believe that this announcement should also be greeted by business generally as a step towards containing many of the operating overheads. I am also pleased that Senator Button has spoken to the New Zealand industry Minister, the Hon. David Caygill. The Opposition looks forward very much to the Minister's report to the Senate on the trans-Tasman rationalisation of the motor vehicle industry in both Australia and New Zealand. This is particularly important in regard to the closer economic relations (CER) agreement originated by the Fraser Government and continued under Mr Hawke and the CER impact on the car industry plan. I note that throughout the ministerial statement Senator Button has instructed the Australian Automotive Industry Authority to undertake certain reviews and monitoring of the car industry plan. I hope that the Government's confidence in the Authority is well placed and that the Authority is well equipped to carry out this vital role. I believe that this could perhaps be better done had this been within the Minister's own Department because so often authorities can be used as pigeonholes for difficult decisions. I hope this is not going to be the case with this particular authority. Despite the objective of the initial plan at its outset to bring about a reduction in the price of the family car, unfortunately quite the reverse has been the case. The depreciation of our dollar, particularly against the Japanese yen, has substantially increased the price of both imported and domestically produced and assembled cars. This factor, in conjunction with increases in sales tax and the introduction of the fringe benefits tax, has spelt disaster for many automotive dealers. In my own State of Tasmania, new vehicle registrations last year sank to their lowest level since 1962. As a result many dealers have been forced out of business-not only in Tasmania but across the nation. The hardest hit have been those in rural areas where turnover is naturally much lower. It is encouraging to see that the Government is now prepared to take some action on this issue and to take steps that may result in more affordable cars for the consumer, but that remains to be seen. As the Button car plan was in place prior to the currency realignment, it is possible there is some room for change in the tariff structure. I think that would be welcomed by consumers. In effect, as the dollar has gone down in value the effective protection has increased in relative terms and some adjustment to tariff levels can be afforded by the industry as a result. Unfortunately, some of these changes will come too late for many to benefit from them. It appears that the Government may have been using the motor vehicle industry as a pawn in a very much larger game plan. I refer the Senate to an article entitled `Wheels come loose' that appeared in the 27 July 1987 edition of Time magazine. In that article the President of the Australian Automobile Dealers Association, Mr Graham Woodward, relates how he approached the Treasurer, Mr Keating, during a lull in a cocktail party in Hobart. He asked Mr Keating whether he had deliberately used the motor industry to help with the Government's objectives; that is, to reduce consumption expenditure. Mr Keating was reported to have responded with the following words, `That's right, it's the biggest one and it's the easiest target'. If this statement is reported accurately-I would like the Treasurer to deny it-I hope that the Government will pay more attention to the advice of Senator Button, who almost certainly has a greater concern for the plight of the industry and those employed within it than do some of his colleagues on the ministerial front bench, including the Treasurer. I believe that the ministerial statement delivered by Senator Button is a halfway mile post in the plan. The Opposition, like the industry, awaits the result of the car plan in 1992. It is proper to make warning comments on an occasion such as this, and I hope that the Minister takes some notice of what has been said. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(4.52) —I welcome the statement made by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. I believe the Minister ought to be congratulated at the outset on the tenacious and intelligent way in which he has attempted to reform the Australian car industry through the car plan announced in May 1984. It has not been an easy task to bring an insular, pampered and basically uncompetitive industry into the latter part of the twentieth century. As we in this chamber all know, for years that industry has hidden behind high tariff barriers and the use of quotas on imported competition. The result has been a gradual decline in our competitiveness, the takeover of our domestic sales by Japanese imports in particular, and a lack of long term security for those who work in what is in fact one of Australia's most important manufacturing industries. For those trendy people who have consistently underestimated the future and importance of manufacturing in this country, the car industry's survival and growth under this Government should be an eye opener. As I said, the importance of the car industry must not be underestimated. According to figures produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in June 1987, 68,000 people were employed in this industry; that is, about 7.5 per cent of all those employed in Australian manufacturing. In many cases they are widely dispersed throughout this country in key strategic areas. The service sector and the finance sector of the economy may be the glamour growth areas, but the long term survival of those 68,000 jobs in the car industry must still be the priority of this and of any government. Of course, a consumption and fashion based industry such as the car industry cannot afford just to tread water. It must be efficient, technologically sophisticated and export oriented. The penalty for standing still is not only to lose one's status in the world but also to be passed by, as the United States of America found out in the 1960s when the first invasion into that country of the Japanese manufacturers began. That is what happened here in Australia in the late 1960s when the Japanese moved in here and when imports ultimately accounted for something like 20 per cent of domestic sales. Senator Maguire —How much? Senator AULICH —Twenty per cent of domestic sales in this country. The response from governments and the industry itself to that invasion or competition has been interesting. I guess it is an example of Australia's then reluctance to accept that we were very much a part of a world economy and that somehow or other sloppy standards would not be tolerated by our own local consumers, let alone by overseas markets. We are starting to find out that that is not the case. The response during the 1960s and early 1970s was to try to keep out competition by lifting tariffs on imported cars and imposing restrictions or quotas on the number of foreign cars allowed into this country. That was a very clumsy mechanism for control and certainly one which in the long term did not benefit this industry as it became, as I indicated before, extremely sloppy and, in many cases, uncompetitive. Since that time a number of government car plans have been imposed. The statistics over the last decade or so show that on average one car plan or major modification per year has been implemented since the 1960s. None-I repeat, none-succeeded in arresting the decline of the industry until this Government imposed its plan in 1984-a plan intended to last until 1992 and to be reviewed mid-term with appropriate adjustments being made. The Minister made his statement today to indicate that that review has been going on and that adjustments are now being made. What is outstanding about this Labor Government's plant is its success and its consistency. The two are related to each other. Everyone in the industry knows what the ground rules are, and accordingly the industry has lifted its game. Let us look at the figures. Since the Button plan was implemented four years ago the level of foreign imports as a percentage of sales in Australia has dropped from 20 per cent to 11 per cent. Australian car manufacturers and component makers have now penetrated overseas markets in a way that would have been considered impossible 10 years ago. For example, we export Holden engines to Japan, alloy wheels, braking systems, and springs to Mercedes in Germany, and suspension systems, to name just a few. The list is impressive, but what is more impressive is that those Australian components are now being built to a quality standard that is acceptable to the very high standards of the Mercedes and Japanese car companies, for example. That is a commentary in itself not only on the success of the car plan and the views of the Government in 1984 when the plan was brought in but also on the way in which the industry itself has responded to the challenge. There cannot be success for an industry like this unless the challenge is laid down, and that challenge will never be laid down or seen by manufacturers if they are hiding behind high tariff walls and quotas imposed on foreign cars coming into this country. The basic cause for these components being sold successfully overseas is the offset system that has been imposed under the Button plan, where credit is basically given to those manufacturers who are able and willing to export and are therefore given credit internally for buying in other components from elsewhere. There are many other areas I could nominate as being a cause for the change that has occurred, but I think it is sufficient to say at this stage, given the shortness of time available in this debate, that the total plan has worked. There have been teething problems. Certain importers have been very critical indeed of the Government. However, I wish to make a very brief comment on the attitude of some of the importers of foreign cars. I well recall the rather arbitrary decision in 1974 under the Whitlam Government to cut tariffs by 25 per cent on imported vehicles. Like a few of its decisions on tariffs, that decision was generally not thought through as well as it could have been and had consequences in a number of industries. The interesting thing about those tariff cuts was the fact that, despite a revaluation upwards of about 25 per cent of the Australian dollar, the importers, with one exception, did not pass on to the Australian consumers one dollar per unit for cars sold in this country. At the time the motoring magazines looked very closely at the adjustment in prices that occurred as a result of the Whitlam Government cutting tariffs by 25 per cent and the associated revaluation of the Australian dollar. The Australian domestic consumer should have benefited enormously from those moves. Yet, at the time Fiat was the only importer who was able to pass on any of those benefits to the consumer. I believe that in the case of the smallest Fiat car, something like $100 by way of discount was passed on to consumers. Every other importer simply pocketed the difference and said thank you very much to the rather naive Whitlam Government at the time, and continued on its merry way. Since then, of course, knowing their market better, importers have continued to mark up a significant number of vehicles in their range and at times have attacked those few importers in this country who have decided to keep prices down to a reasonable level. About two years ago one European importer was criticised and had anti-dumping challenges levelled against it-not officially, because the other importers were not game to proceed to a formal investigation. That importer was maligned in the motoring Press and in the general Press simply because it decided to keep its prices down while other comparable car importers, or people who were selling a similar product, were raising prices by as much as $6,000 to $7,000. That shows that there appeared to be a cartel of importers operating at that time using the import quota restrictions as a method of lifting the mark-up on the particular vehicles that they were selling. This is not a simple matter and one cannot simply change an industry by dropping tariff barriers or dropping the restrictions or quotas on imported cars. That is not good enough because, as I said, some importers will simply pocket the difference. Rather, one must look at the total plan in which one is involved, look at the market niches around the world, encourage the manufacturers both of cars and of components to head for those market niches, and support them in every way one can. In particular they should be given credit to import other components that may not be able to be made here but which can be imported duty-free as a trade-off for their export activities overseas. The transition in the car plan has not been easy. As we all know, the manufacturers and retailers initially baulked at the challenge. In the past that reluctance on the part of the industry to move usually resulted in governments backing down under pressure from manufacturers and, I must say, from unions. In those days a batch of sackings was all that was required. Many honourable senators will remember the strategic sackings that took place in the Australian car industry during the 1970s as successive governments attempted to get the industry to move towards a more export oriented basis of operation. Politically it has been necessary to hold a steady line against those pressures. As everyone knows, a Labor government is generally fairly vulnerable to pressure from the trade union movement. There is no doubt, as I have said, that in the past manufacturers unwilling to move in line with government plans to change the car industry were very willing to simply sack workers and say to the unions, `Well, it is your Labor Government; you go to Canberra and convince your confreres there that they have to keep the car industry as it is'. It was not good enough simply to keep the car industry as it was. As I said, any industry that stands still at a time of rapid evolution will be passed by. It must be said of this plan and of the man behind the plan, Senator John Button, that he has displayed a consistency and firmness that everyone in the industry is now beginning to appreciate. The Government did not walk away from the absolute need to hold the line on this plan. What was needed was, of course, simply consistency and firmness. Industry workers and consumers now have that. This Government has its faults, but on the whole it set out to make industry in this country more competitive. The car industry plan is part of that approach. I am very happy to say that I welcome the Minister's statement and look forward to the next four years and the return of a Labor government which will be able to oversee the new plan in 1992. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Hawke and Bannon governments to come to grips with the obstruction of the submarine construction project by elements of the trade union movement in South Australia and the disastrous implications for both defence and industry development. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.05) —This debate, following on the debate about amendments to the Government's car plan, touches on a different form of industrial project, one of which is of major significance for Australia. I refer to the major project announced by the Government only last year to build submarines in Australia for the Royal Australian Navy. In the announcement on 18 May 1987 the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) made clear that this was a matter of very great importance to Australia. He said: The Government's decision is a major step towards implementing recommendations in the Defence Policy Information Paper and, together with projects for frigates, minehunters and other vessels, constitutes the greatest peacetime warship building program in Australia's history, at a projected cost of eight billion dollars. The Submarine project is also a great step forward for Australian industry in developing new and upgraded capabilities for both domestic and export markets. More than 600 jobs will be created at the assembly site in Port Adelaide and thousands of other jobs elsewhere. There will be a massive transfer of new technology to Australian industry, including an upgrading of production skills and quality assurance flowing from the project. That is a very clear statement from the Government that the project is one of immense significance for our defence and for our industry. The cost of the project in 1986 dollars was put as just under $4 billion. We find that after great competition from New South Wales and Western Australia the project was awarded to South Australia, one of the principal reasons being that State's reputation as having a significantly better industrial relations history, atmosphere, record, or call it what you will. However, in 1988, less than a year after the announcement of the award of the project to South Australia, there has been a serious dispute for the past four weeks or so, preceded by several months of industrial unrest. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), rather late in the day, is spending the day in Adelaide to try to repair the damage. The latest statement on the state of the project, published this morning, was that so far the ban had delayed work only slightly and that the Australian Submarine Corporation had maintained its commitment to South Australia at this stage. Those representatives in the Parliament who have long been urging that the award of the contract to South Australia was utterly appropriate and would ensure that the project was dealt with efficiently must be concerned that there is even a possible suggestion that the project could be lost to South Australia because of the difficulties presently being encountered. Heavy engineering throughout Australia has been in great difficulties. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has had to bring forward a heavy engineering plan. He would know that a number of shipyards in Australia have closed, and that one of the substantial reasons for those closures has been the incapacity of those shipyards to meet foreign competition. One of the elements of that failure has been the restrictive work practices which have been a feature of those shipyards. Senator Button would know that the award of this project was based on the expectation that better practices would apply on the submarine project. It is the threat to those better practices which has caused the concern, which is certainly felt by the Opposition and, I think, by the community, and which puts this important industry project at risk. It is important to note that the Opposition has supported the Government's proposal that the submarines should be built in Australia. We have supported it in the interests of Australian industry and of Australia's defence. But there are risks in the project, and it appears to the Opposition that those risks are now becoming very evident and rather higher than they should be. Basically that is because there are difficulties within the trade union movement. There have not been difficulties between the Submarine Corporation, that is, the employer, the contractor, and the trade union movement generally or between them and their work force, or because they are trying to achieve conditions for the work force that are unsatisfactory. It is the fact that there are disputes within the trade union movement itself, between the ACTU and the United Trades and Labour Council of South Australia, that this project is being thrown under a cloud. Clearly, if the Government and the Submarine Corporation are to succeed in this very important project there need to be new attitudes brought to bear by the trade union movement generally and not just elements of it. There need to be new approaches to industrial relations. It is quite clear that that is being sought by the Submarine Corporation, but that at the moment that is being subverted. I remind the Senate that the good industrial relations record of South Australia was an important selling point in achieving the contract for South Australia. When the contract was awarded, Mr Bannon took out advertisements showing a very fine photograph of him and containing these words: We've won the submarine contract. Once again, South Australia has shown what can be done by working together. Many South Australians, including business, unions and the Submarine Task Force deserve credit for their work in helping to win the contract. Thank you. Now it's time to prove to Australia that we can do the job-and do it well. Mr Bannon and Mr Beazley, the Federal Defence Minister, were saying that the industrial relations argument was a key factor in favour of South Australia. The Opposition saw that as an appropriate factor in South Australia's favour. It is tragic that a few months down the track it appears that the South Australian trade union movement is unable to come to grips with the arrangements which have been put in place not as a unilateral, employer-imposed matter but as a matter of agreement between the employer and the ACTU-an agreement which is now causing so much disruption from the United Trades and Labour Council. One might well ask whether there is any reason why the Commonwealth or indeed the State Government should be criticised because, after all, this is a dispute between elements of the trade union movement and the employer. I say in response to that rhetorical question, since it may well be raised in debate, that both State and Federal Governments were prepared to accept the credit for a good industrial relations record. They bear some responsibility in this project, which involves just under $4 billion in 1986 dollars but obviously ultimately much more than that, and they cannot on the one hand take the credit for the good industrial relations system and then duck for cover as soon as the difficulties emerge. The fact is that this project has proceeded with Commonwealth Government support on the basis that there is a need for a new deal, a new approach. Clearly, the Submarine Corporation is following the spirit of the Government's own approach in dealing with trade unions at Federal level and in seeking to delimit the demarcation disputes and other problems which traditionally have arisen in Australian shipyards. What is being sought by the Submarine Corporation is in no sense unusual. We have a situation where there has been negotiation between three major unions at the national level. They have entered into discussions with the Submarine Corporation, the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Electrical Trades Union and the Federated Ironworkers Association. They, with the backing of the ACTU, have agreed to try to reach a national agreement. That agreement is expected to cover things which are not repressive of the work force, but which are in the interests of the work force as well as of the employer. It is expected to cover wages, hours, general conditions, training, skills enhancement, personnel career growth, occupational health and safety and quality control. The assessment of the Minister for Defence as to the intention of the Submarine Corporation to enter into this sort of agreement was that it would: make an important contribution to the success of the submarine project. The proposed union agreement with the ASC could provide a model for industrial relations in future defence projects including the ANZAC Ship project. That was said by Mr Beazley just before Christmas, and that is the basis on which we are now so deeply concerned that the project is running into such difficulty. Clearly, on the assessment of both the Opposition and the Government, the Submarine Corporation is trying to do the right thing, and yet is being blocked by the United Trades and Labour Council of South Australia. What is being sought to be done here in Australia is no different from what is being sought to be done in other countries with which we are in competition. We are in competition in a direct sense because the alternative to building these submarines in Australia, or ships in other contracts in Australia, is of course to buy them overseas. People in other countries, including Great Britain, who are entering into this sort of transaction are insisting on single union, no strike deals before they invest in new projects. It is consistent with the present Government's own drive for an internationally competitive secondary industry that we should be following down the same track in Australia. Yet we have this negative trade union reaction, we have had months of disruption, and we have had from both Federal and State governments essentially a hands-off approach to this and a refusal to get involved until today's visit by the Federal Minister. The position today is exactly as I have described it. The ACTU is supporting the agreement between the Australian Submarine Corporation and the Federal branches of the three unions that I have named. There will be pressure at State level on the Federal Minister to use his position to force the Submarine Corporation to throw out or modify the agreement so that work on the submarine site can proceed without the benefits of the agreement. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce shakes his head. I am glad if that indicates that the Government is not going to be prepared to go along with that line, and I welcome that on behalf of the Opposition. But the reality is that this contract will not be satisfactorily carried out if we revert to past practices. The matter of public importance raises implications for both defence and industry development. The significance for Australia in what is happening is that if the Government fails in its attempts to get this submarine project operating satisfactorily, out of economic necessity Australia will be forced back to off the shelf buying from other countries. What is happening in South Australia must deter others who might otherwise invest in the sorts of projects that we are discussing today. There is no basis for certainty or for efficient operation if the sorts of disruption, bans and limitations which are being imposed in South Australia are allowed to continue. The Opposition believes that for projects of this sort to proceed we need agreements which remove the risk of demarcation disputes. We need agreements which are positive for the work force and management, and that appears to be what is being sought in the instant case with both the employers and the ACTU involvement. We believe that these agreements need to contain dispute settling procedures to avoid costly losses of time due to strikes or limitations of work. Indeed, we believe that so far as possible there should be no-strike agreements in these matters. In bringing this matter forward, again it might be asked whether this is entirely a matter to be left to the Submarine Corporation and the unions involved. In the view of the Opposition, that is not the case. The Opposition's view is that so far the Government has signally failed to live up to it responsibilities in this matter. Its responsibility is as the custodian of the $4 billion plus of taxpayers' money that will have to be put into this project, which may well become $8 billion plus if precedents are followed. What needs to be done by government? For a start, a clear lead needs to be given by government as to what is required. That lead was apparent while things were going smoothly. In December, Mr Beazley and Mr Bannon were able to state quite frankly what they thought was required for the success of the project because there appeared to be agreement between the parties. They have been very low in their profiles on this matter ever since the difficulties started two to three months ago. The first obligation that is on the Government is to establish some sort of lead in this matter and to make clear what is expected. The second thing required of the Government is that it should make it clear to the parties that the Government is not prepared to see this project sabotaged. The reality is that the Government has set the Submarine Corporation a goal to build a number of submarines for a certain price in 1986 dollars. If it becomes apparent that it is impossible to meet that objective within the present parameters, the Government has to be prepared to change those parameters. It has been the view of the Opposition that the placing of this contract in South Australia be supported. We remain of that view. But it is also true that in Western Australia and New South Wales it is now being argued that the contract could be more satisfactorily dealt with out of South Australia. I believe that the Commonwealth could help to clear up this matter by making it quite clear to the parties concerned that they have a national obligation and that national obligation is primarily to see the defence requirements of Australia met and the submarines built. They should seek to have those submarines built in Australia if that is possible, and if that cannot be done in South Australia it should be done elsewhere. If it cannot be done elsewhere in Australia, it should be done in Sweden. In other words, there is no unlimited source of funds for this project. I believe that unless there is toughness on the part of the head contractor-that is, the Commonwealth itself-there will not be a successful resolution. The Minister at the table, Senator Button, smiles. He always likes to accuse the Opposition of being macho in these matters, but I remind him of the attitude of the Labor Government in New South Wales with respect to the New South Wales State Dockyard. After years and years of losses it finally took the necessary view that the dockyard would have to be closed because it could not operate in an economic way. The same standards are required to be imposed on this project from day one, and I believe there is room for a much more forceful stance on the part of the Commonwealth. The third activity the Commonwealth should undertake is an examination of the Opposition's policy on essential services. Again this should not be dealt with in a partisan way on the basis that every time a matter like this is raised it involves union bashing. I remind the Senate that Mr Unsworth found it necessary to use essential services legislation in the dying days of his Government to protect petrol supplies in the State of New South Wales. It has been the policy of the Opposition for some years that there should be Commonwealth essential services legislation similar to the existing legislation in the States. It has been the policy of the Opposition for some years that that legislation should make provision for the outlawing of strikes and other industrial action in any declared essential service while the declaration is current, and that particular attention should be given to defence matters and industries associated with the defence of the nation. Mr Howard repeated that commitment at the Federal Council of the Liberal Party only last weekend, and I would urge the Government to look to its responsibilities in that regard also. The fourth way in which the Government can act in this matter is by making it clear that where the employer is behaving in a proper way towards its employees, as is certainly the case here, the Commonwealth will support the taking of legal action by the employer in those cases where the trade unions are not prepared to cooperate. This matter has already been raised within South Australia. The bans put in place by the Trades and Labour Council are probably in breach of the Trade Practices Act, and whilst the Opposition would agree that this matter would most satisfactorily have proceeded by entering into agreements in the interests of both parties, where there is a flouting of any agreement the Commonwealth should make it quite clear that it will support the employers protecting their rights against unlawful activities by trade unionists. Finally, it is also important that the Commonwealth indicate that, in its administration of the contract, it will take those circumstances into account. They are circumstances which we hope would not occur but which appear to be becoming ever closer in this case-circumstances where the employers have to take legal action to protect the rights of Australian taxpayers and the rights of the Commonwealth under this contract. The reality is that, as the Minister at the table and Government senators know, industrial blackmail can be used to good effect when the taxpayer is ultimately paying the bill and there is not much chance of any effective remedy. I believe that unless the Commonwealth is prepared to act in those ways-that is, unless it is prepared to give a clear lead as to the direction to be followed, unless it is prepared to make it clear that it is not prepared to see this project sabotaged, unless it makes it clear that it is prepared to consider essential services legislation and unless it makes it clear that it is prepared to support the use of legal actions by employers in cases where the trade unions are clearly breaching the law-we will not get the sort of orderly administration of this contract which is required in the national interest. The last thing I wish to say is that the State of South Australia went to a great deal of trouble to get this contract. It did get the contract on the basis of a demonstrated fine record in the industrial relations area. It is a shame that the lack of communication between the State Labor Government and the United Trades and Labour Council has brought this project to a point where there are significant delays and significant concerns about its successful conduct within that State. There is an enormous obligation on both the State and Federal governments to act in this matter, and the Opposition calls on them to do so. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry Technology and Commerce)(5.25) —On behalf of the Government, I certainly agree that this issue raised by Senator Chaney is a matter of public importance, or may well become one if the current situation goes on. I just want to speak briefly on the matter and put the Government's perspective in relation to the various issues raised by Senator Chaney. First of all, the industrial relations aspects of this project remain a matter between the Australian Submarine Corporation and the unions involved. That is so, and that will remain so. I want very quickly to identify, and in some way, in part, I agree with Senator Chaney, what the Government interest in this matter is. The Government interest in this matter is as a customer. The Government interest in this matter is as a customer which will be spending some $4 billion of taxpayers' money. Senator MacGibbon —And the rest. Senator BUTTON —I do not want to debate that; I am using Senator Chaney's terminology. Roughly $4 billion is being spent on this program. That is the Government's interest, as a customer. I do not mean to say by that that because the Government is the customer it can be in any way indifferent to many of the issues raised by Senator Chaney. As far as the Government is concerned, there have been constant consultations between the parties and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) regarding this issue. Senator Chaney pointed out that Mr Willis is in South Australia today, actively involved in attempting to resolve some of these issues. He is not there as an Industrial Relations Minister whose function it is to rush around the country pouring water on industrial disputes wherever they occur, because such matters are primarily matters for the parties involved. They would be under the Liberal Party's policies, just as they are under this Government's policies. He is there reflecting the Commonwealth's interests in the need to resolve this dispute as quickly as possible, as the customer concerned in this whole project. Admittedly there has been some concern about delays, but let me make an important point about that: this submarine project involves work throughout the Commonwealth. The South Australian site is the assembly point, in essence, and a wide range of work on this project is proceeding in a large number of locations around Australia. Work has also proceeded on the site. To this time there have been no delays in the program. That does not mean that they will not arise very shortly unless this issue is resolved. What we are talking about in terms of this Government's policy, involving both the submarine and frigate programs, is at least a $10 billion shipbuilding program. During the entire period of the Liberal Government which preceded this Government there was no defence shipbuilding program in this country. Two ships were built in that entire period, and they were built on a cost-plus basis. The view of the Liberal Government of the time was that it was easier to get these things done overseas than to build them here. Senator Chaney —We did try to build some, didn't we? Senator BUTTON —Yes, on a cost-plus basis. That is a very important point. When we came into government after seven years of Fraser Government there were 24 unions on site at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. Did the previous Government do anything about tackling that issue? When we have a big program of shipbuilding in Australia which is important for employment, which is important for technology transfer and which is important for wealth generation-- Senator Chaney —In all of which you have our wholehearted support. Senator BUTTON —As Senator Chaney says, we have the Opposition's wholehearted support in those matters. In those circumstances, it is absolutely essential that the sorts of issues which are now being reflected in South Australia are tackled, because we are talking about a 10-to 15-year program. If in order to resolve some of these issues of a multiplicity of unions on site and so on there must be a brouhaha at the beginning, it is much better that it happen then rather than having down the track a series of demarcation disputes between 18, 20 or 24 unions-as we inherited, for example, at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. The defence and industry policy of this Government is about building in Australia a capacity to construct ships as sophisticated as the submarine and the frigates. It is recognised by the Government that we cannot do it in the multi-union environment which we inherited. There is an argument at the submarine site at the moment as to whether three or more unions should work on the site. That is an argument between the company and the unions in South Australia. The Government's view, expressed on a number of occasions, is that there should be no more than three unions on that site. So that is our interest in ensuring that we can build industrial capacity here. There have been suggestions of delays. If the Opposition had had its way the submarines would not have been built here at all. That was implicit in statements of Opposition spokesmen at the time of the signing of the contract for the construction of the submarines. Senator Teague —That is not true. It was clarified. Senator BUTTON —It is clarified now, is it, Senator? That is true in terms of Opposition statements made at the time. For example, Senator MacGibbon favoured the British submarine tender and wanted to delay the signing of the contracts. Public statements were made by Opposition front benchers on the need to delay the signing of those contracts. I believe that they would still be working out whether they should have signed the contracts if those public statements, which were made at the time, are to be believed. In May last year, prior to the Federal election, Mr Peter White, the Opposition spokesman on defence-it suited him at the time, I suppose-said that, if the Opposition was elected in the July 1987 election, it would consider cancelling the contract for the submarines. His statement was repudiated the next day by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. So much for the certainty engendered by the Opposition in relation to the question of delay! On 10 April 1988 Mr White was at it again in a Press release of that date. He talked about the desirability of considering a nuclear-powered submarine and cast doubts on the program in South Australia. If the Liberals had had their way in that matter I am sure that there would have been even greater delays. Senator Chaney —It is even harder to prove that something might have happened than that you have stopped beating your wife. Senator BUTTON —I am just relying on the statement of the shadow Minister for Defence. As I said, when a company which is committed to building the submarine in Australia takes on a program of rationalisation it will undoubtedly run into difficulties because of the structure of the work force which we have inherited in this country. Those difficulties have to be overcome before the project starts. Nobody can run away from them. This is not a cost-plus contract. That submarine will be delivered at the price agreed or we will not get it at all. I think that is what it amounts to. Senator Chaney said that Mr Willis went to South Australia rather belatedly today to intervene in this matter on behalf of the Federal Government. Not so belated was Senator Chaney, who managed to slip down to the submarine site during a by-election in South Australia, and talk to the unions. Senator Chaney then went public on the issue. He incited the unions down there. What Senator Chaney said arising from that meeting-and I am glad he has met a few trade unionists; it is a very useful experience for him-was that the State and Federal governments were to blame for an industrial dispute which threatened further work at the construction site. Senator Chaney talked to representatives of two unions and one employer group which he would not name-very hush-hush stuff, submarine project!-who were involved in the dispute. Senator Chaney did all of that in the context of a by-election in South Australia. I understand that; it is part of the political business. Senator Chaney said that the unions had certainly been very critical of both Labor governments-and that may be true-and that they had to resolve their difficulties with the Australian Submarine Corporation Pty Ltd. He said: `If they say, ``Fellers, you can work on this site with 10, 15 or 20 unions and the Commonwealth Government will continue to pay'', they are labouring under a delusion'. I hope that Senator Chaney said nothing to make them think that that would happen. He may have said that because that was his experience in government. The Liberals built two cost-plus ships in all their time in government. The thing blew out. There was no attempt by the Government at the time to tackle some of these problems which have to be confronted in South Australia. Senator Chaney made the point that there are other shipyards around Australia. There is one in Western Australia which has one union. It can happen. Senator Chaney —That is right; a very good shipyard. Senator BUTTON —As Senator Chaney says, it is a good shipyard. The point that this country has to recognise is that, if we want to undertake major projects such as this submarine construction, it is the responsibility of the parties to work together to that end. That means that unions involved in these projects have a responsibility to ensure that production can take place in an efficient and competitive way. Only a month or so ago a major motor car manufacturing company decided to erect a very big motor manufacturing plant in Scotland. It probably decided to do so long before that, but the issue came to a head two or three months ago. Under the-some Opposition senators might say enlightened-reign of Mrs Thatcher, no agreement could be reached between the trade unions and the company as to various issues relating to demarcation disputes and numbers of unions on site. The car company said, `Thank you very much. It is not on. We won't build this plant here'. It has been taken to another country. I mention that because we can either build the submarines here efficiently at the cost which the customer is prepared to pay or they will not be built in South Australia. There are other places in Australia where they can be built. If they cannot be built in other places in Australia they will be built overseas. That is a reality which any government confronted with this situation has to comprehend. This Government does not in any sense run away from that. If I might just summarise what I have been saying, I do not want to comment on Senator Chaney's string of-- Senator Chaney —Things to do. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney's little shopping list of things that a Liberal government would do if it ever had the fortune to be here. I do not want to comment on all that because I do not think it goes to the central point. I just reiterate that this is a matter between the parties. It is important that it be resolved now, not in a series of disputations over the life of the submarine program. It is important that the parties reconcile their differences on this issue as quickly as possible. It is absolutely essential in a major engineering project of this kind, namely, the assembly of a submarine, that there be no demarcation disputes between a whole range of unions. This country cannot tolerate that in the future and it will not tolerate it as long as this Government is around. I assure all those involved that the solutions which have been suggested have to be dealt with and the dispute resolved as quickly as possible. Senator Chaney says that what is required is new attitudes and new views. I am glad he said that, because the last thing we should do is revert to old attitudes and old views, the sorts of old attitudes and old views which prevailed when Senator Chaney was a Minister in the previous Government. That Government allowed shipyards-Government-owned ones such as that at Williamstown-to operate with 24 unions. It ordered ships and made them cost plus, so the Government was hostage to any disputation which took place. That Government had old views and old attitudes. We have to move away from those. I believe that we are doing so. There will be difficulties along the way. This matter of public importance is about one of those difficulties. I urge the parties to resolve it as quickly as possible. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(5.44) —The Australian Democrats cannot support this proposition. We feel that it is yet another example of the reactionary attitude of the Opposition towards industrial relations in this country. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has just hit the nail on the head with the phraseology of his last sentence or two when he said that it was exemplary of old attitudes and old views. That is probably the basis of our primary objection to the proposition. It does not carry us forward; it just opens up the old psyche and the old attitudes and maintains a negative stance in relation to industrial relations as we have witnessed in this country in past decades. It is time now to move forward. Senator Chaney —Didn't you listen to the debate? Senator McLEAN —I say that it is time to move forward. The dispute referred to in this motion is basically one of demarcation. The aspects which we would prefer to focus on are the industrial relations ones rather than the defence issues. The Australian Submarine Corporation came to an agreement with three unions-I suppose that in itself is significant-the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Electrical Trades Union of Australia and the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia, to conduct the work on the Royal Australian Navy's replacement submarines. I sense that this angered other construction unions such as the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, which objected to being excluded from a $4.6 billion project, even though subcontractors were free to hire members of whatever unions they thought appropriate. So there is potential for flexibility in employment, even though inherently there is an initial commitment essentially between the employer and three broad unions. Site work is now almost completed and the project is about four weeks behind schedule at this stage. I believe that the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) was intervening today in an attempt to take positive steps. He became involved to see whether anything could be done federally to ease the situation. We see that as having been a fairly positive reaction to a crisis which is in its fairly early stages. It does not appear to us that the Australian and South Australian governments have done anything in this dispute which labels them as `failures in coming to grips with the obstruction of the project by elements of the trade union movement in South Australia'. In other words, we do not see either the Australian Government or the South Australian Government as having failed at this stage. In fact, I see the intervention of Minister Willis today as having been constructive, fairly early and fairly appropriate. I see the statements of Premier Bannon of the last few days as being responsible and as appeals based upon responsibility and not irresponsibility and neglect. What does the Opposition want the governments to do-to put on jackboots and go in bashing heads at this stage of the procedure? This is a dispute between the Australian Submarine Corporation and some Australian unions at a fairly early stage of the project. We believe it is appropriate and responsible to leave the parties at least to attempt at this point to resolve their differences and settle down-not to prod the dispute like a hornet's nest at the very beginning of the process but to allow the parties to establish positive and appropriate relationships. The basic problem in this dispute is the state and the structure of industrial relations around Australia, and that is the problem which I would now like briefly to address. Even though there has been a trend towards enlightenment and an easing of strained relationships between the combatants in the past 18 months, industrial relations is still one of the most confrontationist areas of our society. I have in the past cited in this chamber the report of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the Trade Union Development Council mission to Western Europe in 1987, which is entitled Australia Reconstructed. The Australian Democrats have argued that this is a valuable and responsible document which outlines several steps that Australia must take if we are to move from confrontation to reconciliation in industrial relations. This is, of course, what we must do if we are to progress internationally, and the Australian Democrats believe that it is not constructive to stir the possum and prod the hornet's nest in the situation which has been cited in this matter of public importance. Australia Reconstructed emphasises the importance, first of all, of the provision of a stable economic environment by means of an incomes policy and, secondly, a range of policies designed to support efficient industries and to encourage industry reconstruction. It supports direct measures to promote productive investment and full employment. The first of the initial steps in achieving these aims is identified as the need for increasing emphasis to be placed on policies which strengthen the linkages between small and large firms so as to enhance import substitution by encouraging domestic supply of intermediate goods to larger exporting firms. Another initial step is the introduction of industry and trade programs with a strong regional focus which emphasise both efficient restructuring and the maintenance of a geographically and industrially diversified economy. The report emphasises research and development as being crucial to the restructuring process and the need for support programs specifically directed at high growth and strong international sector demands. It also cites a balanced approach to foreign investment as being critical, with specific policies directed towards ensuring that maximum benefit to the domestic economy accrues from both incoming and outgoing investment. One recommendation of the report which has direct bearing upon this dispute is that for the amalgamation of unions. Fewer unions will produce fewer demarcation disputes and more industrial harmony. The report suggests that the Federal Government remove legislative barriers to the amalgamation of unions. In that respect it is a positive and constructive move that this employer is negotiating with essentially three unions. There is the potential difficulty that the 25 other unions on site will have their feathers ruffled, but we see the proposal as being appropriate and, in accordance with the suggestion of this report, the negotiation on site in this case is primarily with three unions. This does not appear to the Australian Democrats to be a radical document and the moves taken on site do not appear to be radical in themselves. When reading through Australia Reconstructed it struck me as a reasonable blueprint for industrial development. Many of its recommendations have been advocated by the Democrats for years. What we did find shocking was the reaction of the Opposition to the report. It horrified the Federal Liberal and National parties. That is the word used. The Confederation of Australian Industry (CAI) labelled it as `extremely dangerous'. This reactionary attitude will not help in the slightest. The Opposition and some of the major business organisations such as the CAI are indulging in the kind of destructive confrontationism which has blighted Australian industrial relations for decades. We see that the proposal before the chamber at the moment is couched in such terms and continues in that vein. This type of attitude has done untold harm to the economy, our competitiveness on international markets and our living standards. Compared with our trading partners, Australia's industry has an abysmal record in utilising technological innovations, in improving industry based training and retraining and, most importantly, in generating an appropriate level of productive investment. The union movement, through the ACTU, has acknowledged its responsibility to contribute to Australia's industrial regeneration by acknowledging that wage rises must be tied to productivity rather than merely to cost of living increases; by showing its willingness to discard the outmoded adversary system of industrial relations and replace it with a co-operative strategy embracing business, unions and government; and by using that consensus model to gear up productive investment, skills formation and export trade promotion. All this must now be encouraged by all sides of this Parliament and by all State parliaments. We cannot achieve industrial progress until we change the obviously unsatisfactory way in which we are doing things. This submarine dispute is a classic example. Both the Government and the Opposition, as well as the Australian Democrats, should now be thinking about ways to assist in developing the structures and processes which will be necessary to improve our competitiveness on international markets. In taking this attitude to industrial relations in general the Opposition continues to do a disservice to Australia. As far as the defence aspects of this dispute are concerned, it is obvious that future defence contracts must be allocated with this dispute in mind and the Government must ensure that this set of circumstances never recurs. Apart from that, we cannot see what defence implications this dispute immediately has. The submarines will be built. They will be built in Australia, as should much other defence equipment. We see this proposal as a provocative action which will simply prod a hornet's nest and we do not believe what has occurred on site to date has been inappropriate and, frankly, we do not see the action of the present Australian Government or the South Australian Government as being either inappropriate or untimely. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.54) —Australia's largest ever defence contract is in jeopardy and a five-week strike is still proceeding in my State, South Australia, and the Australian Democrats' spokesman, Senator McLean, chooses to sit down quietly and to be ever so polite in not criticising the present Australian Labor Party Government federally and in South Australia because he has, on this first occasion of speaking about industrial relations, a commitment in the Australian Democrats to the labour unions' paper, the Australian Council of Trade Unions paper, Australia Reconstructed. If I have ever heard a lame, quiet, lie down approach to a major dispute that threatens our major defence project I have heard it today. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, in his response to the speech of the Opposition Leader, Senator Chaney, was complacent, as the most senior representative of this Government in this chamber, because he said the objectives of this major defence project are all sound. The Government has been prodded by the Opposition and indeed by the whole expectation of the Australian people these days to have a more rational industrial relations environment. So he sought to defend himself by saying that by moving to a three-union contract on this site, by having a fixed contract for the Australian Submarine Corporation to complete this project-I acknowledge that it is a 10- to 15-year project-because these foundational decisions have been made by the Government in the past, the present crisis is not of any concern or worry. Yet in his remarks he did acknowledge that the project is in jeopardy. He clearly said that if this matter is not resolved the project will not proceed in South Australia. Indeed, there will not be any submarines built if the terms of the contract cannot be met. This morning in South Australia wider implications were seen not only for this project being in jeopardy but for any Australian defence project being in jeopardy. The Senate well understands that we have only recently moved to maximising Australian content and Australian self-reliance in defence projects. Over the past 50 years we have depended too much upon our allies, bought equipment off the shelf and contracted overseas. Those days are gone. I agree with Senator Button and Senator Chaney that Australia needs to maximise Australian content and self-reliance. But if this project fails I predict that we will not see a healthy atmosphere for Australian defence contracts. Not only this contract is in jeopardy; also overseas industrial investment in this country and the reputation of my good State of South Australia are being very much compromised by this five-week strike. The submarine project is the biggest defence contract ever determined in this country. It involves $4.6 billion to provide six submarines to be assembled in Adelaide. Such a big project has the attention of overseas investors. If they want to measure the industrial relations climate in this country and are considering whether they will invest here they look to projects such as the submarine project, especially given the very warm and glowing professions by the Hawke Labor Government and the Bannon Labor Government in South Australia about the good industrial relations foundation in South Australia. An article in this morning's Adelaide Advertiser reads: Overseas investment decisions regarding South Australia were being `put on hold' because of the submarines row, the South Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said yesterday . . . . Mr Deare- the acting general manager- said that the demarcation dispute over which unions would cover the assembly of submarines at Port Adelaide had made news in business circles overseas. The Chamber had information that investment decisions involving South Australia were being `put on hold' because of the volatility of the situation. It is not just in terms of industrial investment from overseas. The Western Australian competitors, as Senator Chaney said, are awake to this. A week ago there was a report in the West Australian that there had been a debate in the Western Australian Parliament indicating that Western Australia is ready to take up the project. It is now professing to have a good industrial relations climate. Indeed, it has its labour council on side to say to the Federal Government, `This biggest defence contract is in jeopardy in South Australia, but we are ready to pick up the ball in Western Australia'. I know that other States are ready to do the same. In fact, Senator Button said that if it fails in South Australia we will not have submarines. He directly conceded that this whole project is in jeopardy. It is no good just saying that we have moved into an attempt to have a three-union site. I agree that it is long overdue to move away from the confusion of 24 unions, all with demarcation disputes such as those at the Williamstown dockyard, to a three-union contract. Like the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, I endorse the goal of a three-union contract such as has been determined by the Australian Submarine Corporation. But the endorsement that was given by Mr Beazley on 22 December of last year, at an early stage in these developments, however timely and clear it was, has not been given by the South Australian Premier and has not been given by the South Australian Trades and Labour Council. These are the villains in terms of the building of a good industrial relations environment. The Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, has now been elected President of the Australian Labor Party. Is he frightened to offend the unions? I put to my Labor colleagues from South Australia: Is he frightened to offend the Trades and Labour Council in South Australia? He certainly has not come forth with the same clear words that were used in December by the Minister for Defence. Mr Willis has gone, on behalf of the Federal Government, to try to solve this dispute and, as Senator Button said earlier, to try to get a resolution of a three-union contract on this site. Mr Kelty went last Friday and failed. The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has endorsed the concept of a three-union contract. I would like the Senate to note carefully the following statement on 22 December: The Minister for Defence, Mr Kim Beazley, today welcomed the announcement by the Australian Submarine Corporation that agreement had been reached with three unions to negotiate a national agreement covering the assembly of submarines and associated production work. This statement was worked out with Mr Halfpenny. Senator McLean, speaking for the Australian Democrats, has referred to Australia Reconstructed. I reject his assessment of that document, and he knows that the Opposition does. Mr Halfpenny was one of the authors of that document, along with Mr Carmichael. He was the one who, with ACTU backing, negotiated this three-union agreement with the Australian Submarine Corporation. The Defence Minister, as the customer on behalf of all of us, also endorsed it. Then January, February and March passed and we are into April, and the Premier of South Australia, the President of the Australian Labor Party, is too frightened to endorse it. He wants to allow flexibility to the Trades and Labour Council. It was with little surprise that, when I visited the South Australian Parliament on Wednesday of last week, I noted that the Opposition moved a motion of censure of the South Australian Minister of Labour, Mr Blevins, and of the Labor Government in South Australia-I heard it while it was being put forward and it is still on the books-on the inability of the Bannon Labor Government to ensure an industrial relations climate in my State of South Australia which will guarantee that this most important defence project proceeds in its assembly phase in my State. The terms of the motion moved by Mr Stephen Baker, the Opposition spokesman on labour, began in this way: That this House condemns the Minister of Labour for the damage he has caused to- (a) the submarine project by his support for the participation of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers and the Building Trades Unions in the engineering Works. It went on to stress the failure to ensure a good industrial relations climate in South Australia. There was then a direct reference to three of the mad hatter unions which are wanting to get in on this assembly site in Adelaide, because the three-union agreement which was negotiated with the ACTU and Mr Halfpenny involves the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia and the Electrical Trades Union of Australia. Senator Button, representing this Government here in Canberra, said today again that that three-union agreement is endorsed by the Federal Government. But I put it to the Senate that to have a superior objective in terms of the nature of the contract, in terms of the industrial relations objectives, is not to say that that contract or environment has been achieved. We have had five weeks of strike, and in this debate today the urgency that we bring from the Opposition leads only to complacency, in response from the Government, and quiet politeness on behalf of the Democrats. I, along with all other Opposition members, can only warn the Senate that we have a major project in my State of South Australia which is now in jeopardy because of the failure of the Labor Government in Canberra and the Labor Government in South Australia. Unless we get some recognition from the remaining speakers from the other side we will continue to bring that alert to the people of Australia. The defence programs that reach right through to the end of the century are in jeopardy unless we can get a favourable industrial relations climate in this country. Let me refer to an advertisement that the Premier of my State placed in May of last year in the Advertiser. I have it in my hand. It has a glowing self-portrait of the Premier, along with the words: We've won the submarine contract. Once again, South Australia has shown what can be done by working together. He put forward that view, and we supported him in a bipartisan way to get the project for my State of South Australia. But then he tried to claim all the credit for it because of his success in building an industrial relations climate that was sound and good for this project. Now what is he doing about it? January, February and March have gone by and we are into April, and he has not given any endorsement of the foundation that we have seen endorsed by this Federal Government. I bring to the Senate the urgency of this matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator SCHACHT(South Australia)(6.09) —I have been in the Senate for only a short time, and I must say that the performance of the Liberal Party on this matter of public importance is astonishing. When Senator Teague says that the project in South Australia, to build the submarines, is in jeopardy because of the Federal and State Labor governments, I am amazed. It is only because of the efforts of both those governments that we have the project in South Australia. If we had relied on the Liberal Party policy that existed here for 23 years and then for another seven years, there would not be any submarines built anywhere in Australia. The Opposition policy for years was to buy submarines off the shelf from overseas and to give the money to somebody else. That was its attitude to defence procurement and expenditure in Australia. Senator Teague said that we are going to lose the project because of Labor governments. We have got it going only because of Labor governments. I wish he would give due credit to those governments. Senator Teague has, in a bi-partisan way, supported the submarine contract. I point out to the Senate that during the mid-1980s I was State Secretary of the Party in South Australia. I can remember when John Bannon first started the campaign to have submarines built in South Australia. The Federal Labor Government announced that it was going to build the submarines in Australia rather than adopt the usual Liberal attitude of buying them off the shelf from America or somewhere in Europe. When John Bannon started that campaign it was treated with derision in South Australia and ignored by many members of the Liberal Party. It was not given much support because the concept was too imaginative for the Liberal Party in our State to comprehend. Senator Teague —That is not true. Senator SCHACHT —That is the truth. Senator Teague —It is not true. It was roundly supported. Senator SCHACHT —This is the absolute truth, Senator Teague. I was part of the campaign leading up to the 1985 election when, to the honourable senator's great chagrin, John Bannon won a great electoral victory with the support of the South Australian people. One major plank was the campaign to get the submarines. By that stage, yes, the honourable senator's Party was acting like a very lame duck in supporting the Bannon campaign because it realised that there was going to be every opportunity for success. I want to point out to the Senate today just what has been the Liberal attitude. If we go back over the last two or three years we find a consistent, carping negativism by the Liberal Party towards the submarines. First of all, I would like to quote Mr Aldred, who I understand is the Federal member for Bruce in the House of Representatives. I understand that he may be chairman of a Liberal Party parliamentary finance committee. He has made a number of statements in the Parliament and issued a number of Press statements which I think make very instructive reading about the current attitude of the Liberal Party towards the submarine contract in Australia and particularly South Australia. On 23 February 1988 in the Parliament, Mr Aldred stated: Australia's new conventional submarine project must be halted now. There was no equivocation; it was a statement of fact. That is what he said. If that is not an indication that at least some members of the Liberal Party are wanting to run dead, I do not know what is. Senator Crowley —What did he say, Senator? Read it again. Senator SCHACHT —For the information of Senator Crowley and again to emphasise the point, I will read it again: Australia's new conventional submarine project must be halted now. That is what he said on 23 February 1988, eight months after the project had been granted to South Australia. Senator Teague —That is not the Opposition view. Senator SCHACHT —He is a member of the Opposition. Why does the Opposition not expel him? He knew what he was doing. It was not a slip of the tongue. He stated that in the Parliament in a debate on defence matters and he issued it as a Press statement. In the same debate-he also put this out as a Press statement-he stated: In light of India's acquisition of nuclear submarines and the very real probability of Indonesia acquiring them in the very near future, I call on the Minister for Defence to adopt the only viable option-to ensure Australia's future security, our submarine project must be comprehensively reassessed. There is no doubt that the Liberal attitude is to undermine the project in South Australia. Mr Aldred, a long-standing member of the House of Representatives, has clearly belled the cat for the Liberal Party. I now turn to statements made by Mr Sinclair. I know he is not a member of the Liberal Party but he is a great friend of the present Leader of the Opposition. He calls him `Sinkers' in his quieter moments. Mr Sinclair is the shadow Minister for defence. I will quote four different points that he has made in the Melbourne Age going back to September 1986. He stated: A Liberal-National Party Government would consider scrapping the $2,600 million purchase of new conventional submarines in favour of nuclear-powered vessels. That was Mr Sinclair's attitude. Everyone knows that we would not be able to build nuclear powered submarines anywhere in Australia. In a Press statement on 20 March 1987, he stated: I am still worried about the design selected by the Government. Again, great doubts were raised about whether the project should proceed in Australia. In May 1987 in the Parliament, he stated: However, I am a little curious as to the siting of the project. He is not warmly endorsing the South Australian possibility at all; he is trying to throw cold water on it and damage the prospects of South Australia getting the project. I notice that he never came down to Port Adelaide at any stage or into South Australia and repeated those remarks although he had many invitations to do so. On 29 May 1987, he stated: We on this side of the House want to look at the smaller propulsion unit that was included in the French design submarine, the Rubis, which has a small nuclear cell. This was in late May 1987 just as the project for South Australia was about to be signed. He was still raising the nuclear option knowing full well that if it was adopted that would be the end of building conventional submarines in Australia because we could not build nuclear submarines in this country. So that is the attitude of the shadow Minister for defence, Mr Sinclair, towards the project. I now turn to the extraordinary performance of Mr White, who later became the shadow Minister for defence. I understand that at this stage he still is the shadow Minister for defence. When I quote these passages I know that I will be told that they have been corrected and changed and that there was a misunderstanding, but they give real substance to the view that a large section of the Liberal Party wanted to dud the submarine project in Australia. On 28 May 1987 the Australian Associated Press (AAP) reported Mr White as stating: The signing of contracts for Australia's new submarines should be delayed until after the election. That created mayhem in South Australia for the Liberal Party. Mr Steele Hall immediately repudiated it. Members of the Liberal Party got on to John Howard and he immediately repudiated it and said, `The shadow Minister for Defence does not know what he is talking about. That is not correct'. But this was stated by the shadow Minister for defence. It is probably a further indication of why the Liberal Party was unfit to be considered to win the election. AAP also reported him as follows: Mr White said he stopped short of committing a Coalition Government to repudiating the contracts but said there was no guarantee a new government would accept them. Senator Teague —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The quotation of history is not relevant to the necessary defence that the Government should mount on a matter of current urgency and a matter of public importance. We have yet to hear in seven minutes from Senator Schacht on this matter-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! There is no point of order. Senator SCHACHT —I thank Senator Teague. I knew that I was making a sharp point against the Liberal Party. The point of order indicated that. Mr White stated, `There was no guarantee a new government would accept them'. Again, that is an indication that the Opposition was dubious about the contract being granted not only to South Australia but obviously anywhere in Australia. Again in a Press statement on 22 May he stated: The Liberal Party is not going to accept the $4 billion project simply because the Minister says it is alright. Is that not a clear indication that he has grave doubts about the submarines being built in Australia, let alone in South Australia? In January this year, eight months after the project had been announced, Mr White stated: Australia should immediately examine the option of acquiring nuclear powered naval vessels and particularly nuclear powered submarines. We should know just what are their capabilities and their costs and what infrastructure is required to support nuclear vessels. This is an indication that the Opposition has not given up trying to torpedo the submarine project for South Australia. It was still at it earlier this year. (Quorum formed) I know that Liberal Party senators will be reading onto the record the attitude of various people to this project. A couple of members of the South Australian Parliament ought to have their views recorded. One of them is Dale Baker, the State member for Victoria in the House of Assembly in South Australia. In May of last year he issued statements in his electorate in which he indicated that the submarine contract was a waste of time and a waste of money. That was the attitude of a senior member of the Liberal Party in South Australia. I think the final chagrin of the Liberal Party in South Australia is indicated by the statement that Mr Olsen issued the day that South Australia was awarded the submarine contact. The statement is headed `Disappointed, says Olsen' and reads: Opposition Leader, Mr Olsen, said today South Australia had won only 20 per cent of the $4000m Navy submarine contract and he was disappointed with this after the work done by industry, unions and the South Australian Government. He did not have the good grace to congratulate South Australia on achieving such a spectacular industrial development. In view of those statements that have been made over the last couple of years, Opposition senators cannot say that the matter of public importance proposed here today is other than self-serving and a political stunt that enables the Liberal Party suddenly to jump on the bandwagon and say that it is all in favour of the submarine project in South Australia. To say the least, that is hypocritical. I believe that the Liberal Party has been exposed as having run soft and run dead and having done much to undermine the project. It hopes that the project is lost to South Australia because it believes that that will gain it political kudos in South Australia in trying to win the next State election. The Liberal Party will be in for a great shock. The contract will not be lost to South Australia. The project will proceed. I do not disagree that at present difficulties are being experienced between the contractors and the unions. Those difficulties will be negotiated to a satisfactory conclusion in the next few days. However, when they are satisfactorily concluded it will be because of the sound industrial relations record in South Australia. For 20 years that State has had the lowest level of industrial disputation of any State in Australia. It does the Liberal Party no credit suddenly to jump up today and say that everything is wrong in South Australia. Certainly we do not dismiss the idea that difficulties are being encountered. They will be overcome with the good offices and the work of the Premier of South Australia, the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, and the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley. I look forward to seeing the submarine project go forward, despite the carping criticism of the Liberal Party of Australia. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(6.24) —The matter of public importance before the Senate today concerns the failure of the Hawke and Bannon governments to come to grips with the obstruction of the submarine construction project by elements of the trade union movement in South Australia and the disastrous implications for both defence and industry development. The key elements in that matter of public importance are the failure of the Hawke and Bannon governments to cope with the crisis they have when being stood over by the union movement and the grave consequences that arise from that for the defence of Australia and for industry. Before I speak to the matter of public importance I shall deal briefly with the remarks of those from the Left who have spoken against this important matter; but that will not take long. Senator Button sought to pretend that there was no problem at all. He very much took the Bannon line that it was between the company and the unions. That is a flagrantly dishonest and a morally cowardly way to go. Senator Crowley —I take a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I draw your attention to those remarks of Senator MacGibbon, which blatantly misrepresent what Senator Button said. I suggest by way of taking a point of order that if he wishes to criticise Senator Button's remarks he may not use the terms that he did in this place in blatantly misrepresenting the truth. Senator MacGibbon —I wish to speak to the point of order. I was present in the chamber when Senator Button spoke; Senator Crowley was not. Senator Crowley —I was so. That is another misrepresentation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! I do not believe a point of order is involved; it is a matter of opinion. Senator MacGIBBON —The point is that the Government has a moral and legal obligation to Australia to clean up the mess in Australia today in the submarine program. Senator Button promised to do everything but help in that process. Senator McLean's remarks were typical of statements made by the Australian Democrats-the far left branch of the Australian Labor Party. He said in effect, `Be kind to the bullies'. Appease them as much as you can and hope that somehow or other the tiger that you are riding on will not eat you'. The most amazing statement of all that he made was that he could not see the defence implications in the problems that the unions were creating. Perhaps that was a true statement. The approach of Senator Schacht to the matter demonstrated an almost childlike naivety about the great complexities and the great technical risks involved in the submarine program. One would think that we were involved in something like making cans for beans or something, if one were to listen to his remarks. He showed a total inability to understand what is involved and the risks that the Australian taxpayer faces in undertaking this huge program. I turn to the matter of public importance before the Chair. As I said, its two key elements are the failure of the Government to act in the face of union intransigence and the consequences of that for defence and industry in Australia. The matter concerns the building of submarines in Australia. For the information of the Labor Party, we on this side believe that, Australia having started to build these submarines, that exercise must be executed as efficiently and effectively as possible. We have very great doubts about the design selected; we have great doubts about the site selected. I shall come to those matters in a moment. The first point I make is that we got into this through mismanagement on the part of the Government. There was no pressing need to replace our submarines. Most things in Australian defence are dealt with years behind schedule, but we have a fleet of six very good submarines-the best diesel electric submarines in the world-whose life could be extended to the end of the century. There was no need for us to get involved in this program at the breakneck speed that we did. I wish to refer to two elements of the program: first, the design itself and, second, the place at which the submarines are being built. The one common denominator in all of this is the way in which the Government has mismanaged the program. The design for these boats is less than good. That is because we are dealing with a builder-the state government dockyard in Sweden, Kockums-which was bankrupt. It was saved from closing its doors only by the order it received from Australia for these boats. In many ways Sweden is not a technologically advanced country. In many ways it is not as advanced as Australia. It has a population of about only eight million people. It has never built submarines larger than about half the size of the one that it is building for the Australian Government. It has never built boats of the size, with the range and, least of all, with the weapons systems fit that are required for these boats. It is running into enormous problems. That is demonstrated by the fact that the first boat now must be built almost entirely in Sweden. Minister Beazley promised us as part of the deal that we would build the first boat in Australia. We now find that because the Swedes have never designed a power discharge tube for the torpedoes they cannot design the bow section, so the bow section must be built in Sweden. There are midship problems with the centre section of the hull, and so it has to be built in Sweden. Now we find that the stern section has to be built in Sweden. So much for that. Senator Stone —No-one is building it here. Senator MacGIBBON —That is right: no-one is prepared to move at the moment. We are involved in a program that has enormously high technical risks. As custodians of the public dollar, we are very concerned at the inevitable cost increases that will occur in this program. Already it is the most expensive contract we have ever signed. These submarines will cost $1 billion each by the time they get into the water. Six of them will cost more than $6 billion. There is an argument for buying new submarines, but not at that price. If we are to spend that sort of money, we could probably buy two carriers with air wings to go with them. These are the sorts of priorities we get into if we go down that path. The Labor Party would throw its hands up in horror if I suggested that we buy a carrier, but it is spending a lot more money on these submarines. The technical problems involved in this program are really quite enormous, and the Government simply does not realise what is involved. One of my main objections to the whole program is the dishonest way in which it has been handled. The argument has never been about the design of the submarines, their capabilities, their cost, or anything like that. The program has been carefully turned into a pork-barrelling exercise as to where the submarines will be built. The whole debate during the selection process revolved around whether they would be built in Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne. That, of course, was entirely beside the point. In the end South Australia won the prize, and good luck to it. As I said at the start of my speech, South Australia having won it, and having signed the contract, we should all of us get in and make it work. We should not be held to blackmail by irresponsible unions. I would not have selected South Australia, because it has no heavy engineering skill base. It is not commonsense or economic sense for the submarines to be built where there is no industrial skill base to go into a heavy engineering program. However, the argument advanced was the great industrial relations record of South Australia. I have two things to say about that. First, as there is no heavy engineering in that State, there has not been much strike activity. Secondly, the only two shipbuilders in the history of South Australia both went broke and out of business as a result of union blackmail. Criminal activities and union demarcation problems drove the two South Australian builders out of business. Yet, the argument was that South Australia's industrial relations record was so good that it should receive the contract. Of course, the truth came out of the bag when good old Mick Young, everyone's mate, resigned a month or so ago, and Mr Bannon and other senior members of the Ministry said that Mick got the submarines for South Australia. I really think that probably was the sole determining influence in South Australia obtaining the contract. There is now this great strike and industrial problem between the United Trades and Labour Council of South Australia and the Australian Submarine Corporation, which is attempting to build and satisfy the contract it has. Right from the time the Australian Submarine Corporation signed the contract it recognised the supreme importance of union relations, and it has been scrupulously diligent, careful and correct in what it has done. It has talked and talked and reached agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), and indeed it has the public support of the ACTU to refine the number of unions on site to three: the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Federated Ironworkers Association and the Electrical Trades Union. It is very important that it did that, because Australian shipbuilding has been bedevilled by demarcation disputes between dozens and dozens of different unions. As I said before, the demarcation disputes and criminal elements, particularly within the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, have driven other builders in Australia out of business. The Australian Submarine Corporation, in consultation at every stage with the ACTU, reached agreement as to what would be the union practices on the site. But, what happened? The United Trades and Labour Council in South Australia has bailed up, gone on strike, and put work bans on the development of the site. As a result the whole program has been held up for five weeks. The problem appears interminable; no one can see any solution to it. Mr Bannon and Mr Hawke are simply political tools of the trade union movement. They just will not stand up and tell the people in the Trades Hall in Adelaide that they cannot proceed with what they are doing. Mr Bannon looks particularly weak and effete over this matter. I think he always looks that way. He just wrings his hands. Tomorrow he is getting on a plane and is running away to Japan for a few days or a few weeks-no doubt hoping that when he returns the problem will be solved. He will not create a very good impression in Japan, with its industrial relations record, when he opens up a paper there and realises that the Japanese are reading about what is happening in Adelaide. The Government's responsibility is very clear. It cannot wring its hands and say that it is a matter between the Australian Submarine Corporation and the trade union movement. If the Government had the backbone, it would stop the pickets outside the South Australian site. However, when we and the people of South Australia turn on our television sets tonight we will see pickets at the Williamstown Dockyard in Victoria. Labour senators who have contributed to the debate have made great play of the building of the FFGs at Williamstown Dockyard, and the Anzac ships to be built later. I shall be very surprised if they are ever built, the way things are going there. The work force has completely closed down at Williamstown Dockyard, and the Victorian Government is doing nothing at all to correct the situation. It is just waiting for the unions to fight it out amongst themselves. When the unions have had enough and decided what needs to be done, the Government will have its problems solved for it. The result of all this will be that the shipbuilding program in Australia upon which we are embarking, a program worth $15 billion over the next 15 years, will die, because we cannot build ships if the unions will not provide the work force. What the Government must do is move towards voluntary unionism, reducing the number of unions, and, above all, making unions answerable to the law. Today in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, one country will not invest in another if it has more than one union to deal with. In Australia we have come a long way. With this contract the number of unions has been reduced to three. However, the Government will not give that aspect any practical support at all. The second part of this motion deals with the effects on our industry and on defence. The effects on industry are enormous. Unless the hulls of these submarines are started and built, the whole of the program, worth between $6 billion and $8 billion, will fail. Australian industry is being asked to make a big investment, a lot of capital, in high technology. The program is very closely disciplined with regard to time. Companies will not make the investment to provide the weapons systems and all other equipment for the submarines if the hulls run one, two or three years over time on production. So, the regeneration of Australia's manufacturing base, which is absolutely critical to Australia getting out of the debt position into which the Labor Government has spent us, depends on getting the workers in South Australia back to work straightaway. The consequences for our defence capability also are enormous, because delay means money. The Government has cost the Australian taxpayers billions of dollars because it has not been concerned about the welfare of the men and women in Australia's defence forces. Because the Government has not been concerned, many of the personnel have left. On top of the loss of billions of dollars caused by the premature resignations from the Services there has been this delay in the execution of contracts to buy new equipment. The Government having embarked on this course of action, its only option is to get in and deal with these unions in an honourable and effective way so that the Australian taxpayer is not put at any further risk than at present. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(6.39) —The Senate is debating the following matter of public importance: The failure of the Hawke and Bannon governments to come to grips with the obstruction of the submarine construction project by elements of the trade union movement in South Australia and the disastrous implications for both defence and industry development. One by one speakers opposite have read that out or alluded to it. They have accused Government speakers of not addressing the issues in the matter of public importance, and have then refused to speak to the matter themselves. As the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) said in refuting the words of Senator Chaney, Senator Chaney's contribution to the debate was principally a shopping list of what would be a good idea of what to do in the future. The comments of Senator Teague seemed to fall somewhere between criticising Senator Button for not being serious-`complacent' was the word he used, and I very nearly sprang on that because of its total dishonesty-and remarking on how seriously Senator Button had described the issue. I cannot understand how one can say how serious a matter is and at the same time accuse somebody of being complacent. We have just heard Senator MacGibbon scatter his bullets in every direction, except as to the matter under debate. He put forward not one suggestion as to how the issue should be tackled. He just kept saying that it should be tackled in the three or four times that he strolled back towards the subject. He did not refute the Government's claims that the Opposition is unclear, confused and divided in its attitude to the submarine project. Criticisms from the Opposition by way of interjection were to the effect that that is not the case now-presuming, inadvertently, to admit that it was the case then. I wish to quote a few remarks by Opposition spokesmen to point out that this still is a matter of confusion among the Opposition. I address not only last year's quotes but statements made this year. Further to that, we had Senator MacGibbon's comments that, as the matter is on the ground, let us get on with it; but he also commented that, in the meantime, it is not the right thing to be doing. I take his point that he is at least saying that we should proceed with the project but is giving the matter tame or half-hearted support. He certainly agrees with some of the quotations that I shall now come to. First-this has been quoted before but I think that it is important to put it on the record again-let me quote a report about Mr White, the defence spokesperson, on 28 May by Australian Associated Press: The signing of contracts for Australia's new submarines should be delayed until after the election, Opposition Defence spokesman Peter White said today. Mr White said he stopped short of committing a Coalition Government to repudiating the contracts but said there was no guarantee a new government would accept them. The Opposition seems to suggest that that was not the case, that it did not really mean it, that it was not really said, and so on. Not only was it really meant and really said, but Mr Howard raced to repudiate it, to the point where the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, on 29 May 1987 put out a Press release saying that he: welcomed the Opposition Leader's repudiation of his spokesman on Defence, Peter White. Those points have been elaborated in this chamber. The Opposition was and is confused as to its attitude to the submarine project. It sort of wants it but it sort of does not, and it is not quite sure what sort of project it would prefer if it had the opportunity. That confusion remains and it illustrates the division and erratic nature of Opposition policy. It has been brilliantly illustrated over the last week in terms of Opposition tax policy. To bring the matter more up to date: on 10 April this year the Federal member for McPherson, the shadow Minister for Defence, made the following statement in a whole page Press release: Nuclear powered ships for the Royal Australian Navy is an option which must be examined. He continued in that statement: It is to the everlasting shame of the present Government that no proper study of the nuclear option was carried out when the proposals for the Australian submarine were being examined. That clearly indicates that the Opposition would like to keep its nuclear power options open. If that is the case, how does Senator MacGibbon hope to spend the money he wants to spend, or says that his Party is committed to spend with the current submarine project, in order to keep his nuclear submarine options open? Going on past experience, I would have thought that the coalition parties would buy the submarine off the shelf from overseas because Australia is unable to build some critical parts of nuclear powered submarines and is unable to service or maintain such submarines. What is the Opposition's policy on submarines? Labor senators have the right to claim that there is confusion among the Opposition. That point needs to be made because the Federal Labor Government, in its commitment which it has expressed with clarity and in instigating a defence program with an Australian component in which the submarine will be built in Australia, makes a nonsense of the Opposition's attempt to introduce a matter of public importance on this topic. No government-neither the South Australian Labor Government nor the Federal Labor Government-which has gone to this amount of effort and trouble to get a submarine project in place will sit around and do nothing about the difficulties confronting the project. The Opposition's argument on this aspect is specious and ridiculous. By way of contradiction of Senator MacGibbon's comments, I would point out that nuclear submarines were considered but dismissed by the Navy as unsuitable to our operational needs. It seems that Senator MacGibbon grossly misrepresented the adequate and comprehensive examination of Australia's needs in this area when he lightly dismissed Government evidence that the most appropriate submarines are those which we have sought to build and which are in the process of getting under way. My colleague Senator Button made the Government's position clear. He gave the Senate an excellent summary of the Government's position and an excellent understanding of the Government's attitude to industrial relations. He clearly indicated his understanding of the position and of the problem, and pointed to the Government's attitude and awareness in this respect. To suggest that because Senator Button did not shout, or throw his arms around, or thump the table, he was complacent is a gross misrepresentation of what he said. Surely the Opposition should have had the grace to admit that Senator Button dealt comprehensively with an analysis and understanding of the situation that faces Australia. The Government is more than aware of the difficulties and is taking steps to address them. It is aware that these problems are not solved overnight. If the Opposition is unclear as to the Government's seriousness in attempting to come to grips with the issues in submarine construction, I urge it to read Senator Button's comments tomorrow. Senator Button made clear that essentially this is an issue between the employers, the Australian Submarine Corporation, and the unions involved. The Government's involvement is twofold, as Senator Button said. First, we are a customer and we have a serious interest from that point of view. Also, as the Federal Government-and in terms of this matter of public importance I think that we can speak on behalf of the South Australian Bannon Labor Government-we have an interest in the importance to Australia of the development of this significant Australian defence industry, and the commitment to changes and developments in the industrial arena. It is curious that the Opposition wants to attack Minister Button, particularly in the light of his statement this afternoon, when there are any number of examples of his commitment to appropriate changes in Australian industry in seeking to do the many things which the Opposition failed to do in a period of 23 years, and a subsequent period of seven years, in government. Opposition members have a great gall to talk about industrial matters. Senator Chaney acknowledged the good record of industrial relations in South Australia. He conceded that that was one of the proper reasons why the submarine contract went to that State. I quote from the Advertiser of 12 March 1988 during the Port Adelaide by-election campaign: The Federal Opposition's spokesman for Industrial Relations, Senator Chaney, said in Adelaide he had talked yesterday morning with key unions involved in the dispute and a project representative but- this was a point made by Senator Button- he refused to name the unions involved or the representative. How coy! The Premier, Mr Bannon, is described in the article in the Advertiser as talking of Senator Chaney's moves as `a cynical political stunt'. When Senator Chaney was accused of the same by Senator Button in this place today, he grinned in acknowledging that it was all part of the political campaigning in the Port Adelaide by-election. Senator Chaney acknowledged the importance of the industrial relations record for the approval of South Australia in obtaining the contract for the building of the submarines. He said in an article which I paraphrase from, I think, the Queensland Courier-Mail on Monday, 14 March, that South Australia has a justifiable record of industrial relations and that record properly contributed to its being awarded the contract. For the record, I want to recall the industrial disputation record of the present Liberal Opposition when it was in government. (Quorum formed) It is curious that the Opposition should call a quorum when I am about to compare this Government's record and the previous Liberal Government's record on industrial disputation. The November working days lost figure of 126,700, whilst slightly higher than the October figure of 117,600, is the lowest November figure achieved by this Government. It is more than 50 per cent lower than the November average of 272,700 working days lost under the previous Liberal Government. The dramatic improvement in dispute activity since the election of the Hawke Government is better illustrated by the monthly average of working days lost, which has dropped by 53 per cent to 116,100, compared with 249,600 under the previous coalition Government. This improvement is even more remarkable when employment growth over the two periods is considered. Clearly this demonstrates that the Hawke Government's industrial relations policy, including the accord with the union movement, has contributed to a significant improvement in industrial relations in Australia. That is on the record and beyond dispute. I simply say, in summary, that the Opposition in bringing on this matter of public importance has failed to address the issues. It has simply wanted to blame Federal and State Labor governments. It has failed to address the seriousness with which the Federal and State Labor governments are addressing this issue-if for no other reason than they have worked so hard to get this project in place. Of course they are serious about the industrial difficulties confronting the project at the moment; of course they are taking steps to address it; and of course we will see the solution that we can see any number of times on this Government's record. The Opposition's arguments are hollow. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(6.54) —This debate has been instituted by the Opposition as a cheap political manoeuvre to enable it in a very hypocritical way to parade ignorance as expertise. The Opposition is critical of the Bannon and Hawke governments because of what it perceives needs to be done to bludgeon the trade unions into submission. I would suggest that the understanding and expertise in the industrial relations area of those governments is far greater than that of the Opposition. I also suggest that we will not under any circumstances adopt the Liberal-National Party approach to industrial relations and bludgeon people, making them industrial conscripts. That is no solution; it will not work in the short term or the long term. For some time the Opposition has been critical of the number of unions involved in the industrial scene in this country-a situation which without doubt has led to a quite substantial number of demarcation disputes. Of all disputes, these disputes are probably the most negative and unrewarding to all parties. On many occasions, though, people ignore the fact that such disputes are commenced on the basis of people's concern for their livelihood and the welfare of their families-their concern about having the right to a job. It may be that if one stands back and takes a broader view, one finds that such disputes are not the correct way to go, but for those people involved they certainly are. Bringing them enlightenment and understanding about what needs to be done in the future in the interests of this country is much more profitable, much more rewarding, than suggesting that because they may not understand the broader situation, because they may have an imperative worrying about whether they will get paid or have a job next week, they should be bludgeoned into submission. I suggest that is the wrong way to go. The Liberal and National parties also quite consciously, although saying there were too many unions, legislated to prevent amalgamations-amalgamations which have now been shown, and it is on the record, to have led to the elimination of demarcation disputes in many instances. Further amalgamations, which are supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) but obviously opposed for narrow political reasons by the Liberal Party, would lessen much further demarcation problems in industry. The Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Electrical Trades Union and the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia were undoubtedly motivated by such a desire when they came to an agreement with the Australian Submarine Corporation concerning this engineering project. It is an engineering project, quite different from the situation where there is a ship on a slipway in the traditional shipbuilding fashion. I understand, having been involved in these matters over many years, that the unions are concerned about building up industry in this country. They are conscious of the fact that mistakes have been made in the past and they are seeking to build up industry by taking a rational approach to the construction of the submarines, and that is why they have reached an agreement with the company. That, of course, does not mean that people who will find themselves without work and unions that will find themselves not representing people in an area they feel they have a right to represent them in will not feel left out and will not take some sort of action to try to protect their position. The answer is not to bludgeon them and it is not to misrepresent the position, as has been done by the papers and by members of the Liberal Party. Let us look at the Liberal Party's attitude. A Mr Aldred, who is the Opposition's treasury and finance committee chairman, has said: Australia's new conventional submarine project must be halted now. He said we can buy them off the shelf cheaper. He was absolutely unconcerned about the possibility of technology transfer. He was absolutely unconcerned about the number of jobs that would be available, even though there was some dispute about how the project might be proceeded with. That is the Liberal Party position. It does not care about jobs and it does not care about workers, but that is not unusual because that is its approach to all sorts of problems in industry in this country. I repeat that the ACTU has played a very important role in seeking to reduce by way of amalgamation the number of unions, and so create a better climate for industry in this country. The task of building the submarines will involve a lot more unions than the three I have mentioned. It will involve a number through the system of subcontracting. A subcontract has already been let in Sydney which will involve other unions. I refer again to the fact that people have been trying to misrepresent the position. A letter from Mr D. G. Williams, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Submarine Corporation, was published in the Australian of 4 April. He referred to the rubbish being peddled by people on the other side of the chamber about great delays and all the additional money that it will cost this country. He said: During the project definition study work undertaken by the Australian Submarine Corporation in 1985/6 the launching of our first submarine was scheduled for 1993. That has not changed. For any new naval vessel there is a period of tests and trials scheduled. Accordingly, Submarine 01 is to be commissioned into the RAN in early 1995, as is specified in the contract between the Commonwealth and the Australian Submarine Corporation. There has been no change to this schedule since the contract was signed. We would also like to point out that there is no basis for the implicit suggestion that the cost to the Commonwealth is increasing dramatically or in some uncontrolled manner. There have been no contract amendments to date which could lead anyone to that conclusion. That letter was written by the Chief Executive Officer of the company which will build the submarines. He pointed out to those people who are trying to suggest that the construction of the submarine facility is tied to the construction of the submarines that it is not tied in a direct way. All the unions whose members would normally be expected to work on the site will be and have been working on the site. Work has been proceeding without an agreement for some six months with little or no industrial disputation. I am informed very reliably that an agreement has already been signed by all unions bar the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, which has some problem about wage relativities with some other union. But it will be signed by those people because they seek to have that sort of agreement. An ex-Liberal Party member in Queensland was quoted recently as saying what a wonderful agreement had been reached so that the World Expo 88 site was completed on time. He paid tribute to the honour of the trade union movement in keeping that agreement. He said how happy he was with the proceedings as far as Expo was concerned. Senator Stone would put his head under his arm when that was being said. He would not want to know about it. He wants to know only about the bad things that are said about the trade union movement. The Hawke Government and the Bannon Government are saying, `If we can be of assistance'-and I understand that Ralph Willis is over there today-`we will do whatever we can to help. We will not bludgeon trade unions into submission. We will not make them industrial conscripts. We will help'. At this stage there has been no question of people, either the trade union members or the employers, asking for assistance. They are seeking to work the matter out, as is evidenced by the letter I quoted from which was dated as late as 4 April. I believe that that is the way to go. If there must be some delay in a project to maintain the right of citizens of this country to show that they are not wage slaves-after all, all that workers have is their capacity to sell their labour, they have very little else; they are not like some rich people in the country who can exploit others-and to maintain some right to sell their labour, and some right to say that there are some things they are not going to do, it is a very small price to pay. The Hawke Government and the Bannon Government are proceeding on a basis of offering that help and encouraging people to take a stand and develop a point of view, a policy and a strategy which will lead to better relations in this country. I believe that they are right and the Liberal Party is wrong. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for the matter of public importance has expired. Senator DEVLIN(Tasmania) —On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the fourth report of 1988 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill 1988. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 4, dated 13 April 1988. Ordered that the report be printed. Assent to the following Bills reported: Conservation Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill 1988 Parliamentary Precincts Bill 1988. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(7.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is complementary to the Child Support Act 1988. Together they constitute the major elements of the Government's Child Support Scheme. Many Australian families over the last 10 years have experienced the pain of marriage breakdown. That is something Governments can do little to help-but Government can take action to alleviate dramatic and sustained drops in living standards for children in those families. For too long poverty has been the traumatic result of marriage breakdown for children in sole parent families. This Government is committed to ensuring that by 1990 no child need live in poverty. The Child Support Scheme is a central part of our programmes to achieve that objective. The centrepiece of the Child Support Scheme is the Child Support Act which will ensure that parents who have the capacity to pay do not abandon the financial responsibility of supporting their children to the social security system. The Child Support Act establishes an agency which will ensure that maintenance is efficiently collected from those liable to pay it and that maintenance is distributed to the families entitled to receive it. The Family Law Amendment Act, which passed through both Houses late in 1987, encourages more substantial awards of maintenance than had been customary previously. This Scheme overall will increase the number of families receiving maintenance, increase the level of that maintenance and ensure that it is received on a regular basis. This Bill will amend the Social Security Act 1947 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to provide for changes in the way maintenance income is treated in the social security and veterans' benefits systems. I turn now to outline the features of the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Bill. The Bill will bring into account a wide range of maintenance income received by social security and veteran pensioners and beneficiaries. The most straightforward of these is cash maintenance paid on a regular basis. At present this is taken into account as income for only some pensions and benefits. In addition, the Bill will provide for the assessment of in-kind maintenance income. Maintenance in-kind may take many forms. For example it may be food provided, household items supplied, payments of medical benefits insurance, the provision of housing or payment of rent, payments of household accounts or educational or child care expenses. It could come in the form of payment of motor vehicle registration and running costs. Another type of maintenance payment which has not traditionally been assessed by Department of Social Security or Department of Veterans' Affairs as income is the transfer of a substantial lump sum of capital, perhaps in the context of distribution of property following a divorce. The Bill will include such capital transfers as maintenance income in so far as they are completed for the purposes of providing maintenance to the pensioner or beneficiary, or his or her dependent children. The Bill will provide in most cases for the assessment of capital maintenance amounts by their imputation over a number of years. This imputed income will be taken to be received fortnightly. The Bill seeks to encourage sole parents in receipt of maintenance income to increase total income by seeking other forms of income, especially income from remunerative employment. This will arise through two income test free areas in the Act. One affects maintenance income and the other applies to all other types of income. The advantage which flows from the receipt of both general and maintenance income is a total income test free area considerably more generous than where only one type of income is received. It is expected that additional non-maintenance income will generally be in the form of casual or part-time earnings. The cornerstone of the scheme is to ensure as far as possible that, where maintenance is payable to a pensioner or beneficiary, it is in fact paid. This will shift some of the burden for the maintenance of Australian children and their parents from the social security and veterans' benefits systems to those who are liable to pay maintenance. The Bill will further advance this intention by emphasising the requirement that sole parents, in order to qualify for pension, must take reasonable action to obtain available maintenance. Similar provisions have existed for a long time in the Social Security Act. This Bill will rationalise the requirement and will be supported by departmental guidelines which will balance the public interest in encouraging maintenance action with the factors in particular cases which might render the wisdom of such action questionable. I assure the Senate that action will not be required where there are genuine fears of violence to the custodian or children or where there may be a threat to the security of the custodian or her children. There are in the Bill special rules which apply to certain types of in-kind and cash maintenance income so as to reduce their effect on the resulting rate of pension, benefit or allowance. The first of these is all in-kind maintenance income provided by the pensioner's, beneficiary's, or allowee's spouse, or ex-spouse in the first six months following separation. The purpose of reducing the impact of such maintenance income is to facilitate the adaptation by the pensioner, beneficiary or allowee to his or her new situation. The second is maintenance in cash and in-kind provided in respect of expenses arising directly from any of various disabilities of a dependent child of the person in receipt of pension or other social welfare benefit. This rule will assist in limiting the adverse effect that the receipt of such necessary maintenance might otherwise have on the rate of pension, benefit or allowance. The final special maintenance category will be in-kind housing maintenance in respect of the home which is the actual residence of the pensioner, beneficiary or allowee. This reflects the importance of secure housing for the children and the difficulties that separated couples often face in providing adequate housing for their children. In recognition of the disruption that could be caused to some existing pensioners and beneficiaries as a result of these reforms, the Bill will provide transitional provisions for the preservation of the total income of a pensioner or other beneficiary so that maintenance income would not apply to reduce total income. The provisions will benefit the person until he or she no longer needs them because total income has risen above that which applied at the date of commencement of the maintenance income test. The Child Support Scheme involves major reforms to Australia's family law and social security systems. It will involve the Tax Office and the Department of Social Security collecting and paying out child support. It will achieve more adequate income support for more custodial families in a way which closely links the levels of private and public income support. This Bill is a key element in that scheme. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —I seek leave to give the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on matters relating to the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1987, to move to take note of the statement and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Let me say at the outset that the Government agrees with a number of the Committee's recommendations and proposes to amend the Bill accordingly. 2. I would like, however, to record my appreciation of the Committee's efforts in drawing to the attention of the Parliament a number of significant issues and the possible means for their resolution. In my view, much has been achieved in clarifying the effect of the Bill and in highlighting the procedural safeguards which the proposed legislation encompasses. I am reassured by the Committee's endorsement of the Bill's provisions which ensure that persons alleged to have committed war crimes will be subject to the same rules and processes as apply generally in criminal trials. 3. I turn now to the Committee's recommendations. 4. As to the first recommendation, the present Bill is already cast in terms which would require the normal rules of evidence and procedure to be applied in any trials to which the Act will apply. Accordingly, this recommendation does not require any amendment of the Bill. 5. Recommendations (b) and (c) would, if given effect, represent a significant departure from Federal criminal law where (like the Bill) it deals with indictable offences committed outside Australia. Thus, under s. 70a of the Judiciary Act 1903, the trial on indictment of a Federal offence not committed within a State may be held in any State or Territory (see Crimes (Overseas) Act 1964, Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act 1972). These Acts have been on the statute book for a considerable time and no suggestion has been put that residence should be the determinant of jurisdiction. Consistent with this regime, the Bill as presently drafted provides that the DPP may choose to initiate proceedings in any State or internal Territory. Further, it is an important principle underlying the Bill that defendants in war crimes proceedings be in the same position as other defendants in ordinary criminal proceedings. However, Mr Temby, in evidence before the Committee, stated that in bringing prosecutions under the Bill close regard would be paid to the place of residence of the prospective defendant, and that he would expect war crimes trials would be brought in a part of Australia where the person resides. 6. In any case, forum non conveniens as a private international law doctrine is not appropriate in the present circumstances. The doctrine has been applied by courts to enable a jurisdiction to be declined where the forum chosen by the plaintiff is clearly inappropriate, i.e. that there is another forum to whose jurisdiction the defendant is amenable in which justice can be done between the parties at substantially less inconvenience or expense, and that the plaintiff would not thereby be deprived of a legitimate personal or juridical advantage which would otherwise be available if the jurisdiction of that court were available. Commonwealth criminal law does not provide for the above doctrine and the Bill should not provide an exception to the usual practice that Federal prosecutions in respect of conduct outside Australia can be instituted in any State or mainland Territory. 7. A further difficulty with recommendations (b) and (c) is that there may well be Australian citizens who are either deported or extradited back to Australia to face war crimes charges but who have no residence in Australia. The Committee's recommendations do not take account of these circumstances nor do they take account of the possible need to limit costs by conducting joint trials in appropriate circumstances. Finally, an important principle underlying the present Bill is that persons prosecuted for war crimes be treated no differently from any other person facing criminal charges in Australia. To agree to recommendations (b) and (c) would be to put war criminals in a special position compared with other defendants. 8. Recommendation (d) is already dealt with in proposed sub-section 13 (2) of the Bill and therefore requires no further amendment. 9. In view of recommendation (e) the Government has determined that the Bill will be amended to provide a discretion in the Attorney-General to authorise such legal and financial assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances. The Government recognises the Committee's desire to ensure that special provision is made for such persons outside the normal provisions of the standing legal aid schemes. A number of other Federal Acts contain similar provisions. 10. Let me now turn to the other concerns expressed by the Committee in relation to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes. 11. Although the majority of the Committee was satisfied that overseas evidence is likely to be of sufficient evidentiary value to warrant the institution of proceedings, it nevertheless expressed concern that prosecutions should not begin until agreements have been concluded between Australia and each country from which evidence is to be obtained, including the 3 countries where undertakings have already been given (i.e. USSR, Hungary and Yugoslavia) that witnesses will be able to give evidence in Australia and have their evidence tested in the usual way. Mr Greenwood obtained initial agreements from the 3 countries to facilitate witnesses travelling to Australia. The agreements are bona fide undertakings by the countries concerned and should in my view be accepted as such-the Canadian/USSR Memorandum of Understanding similarly provides for witnesses to be made available, but only in the context of giving evidence in the USSR. We have achieved a higher undertaking in this regard from the USSR as evidenced by the letter from Mr Greenwood to Mrs Kolesnikova, the Senior Prosecutor for War Crimes in the USSR. Mrs Kolesnikova has affirmed the cooperation of Soviet legal authorities in the implementation of an agreement reached by those officials to the effect that: The Soviet Government will cooperate with the Australian authorities to encourage relevant witnesses to travel to Australia to give evidence in Australian Courts in circumstances where the witness is not prevented by reason of serious ill health from so doing. 12. I should point out that Mr Greenwood specifically advised the Committee that he believed that in some cases, including one particular trial held in the Federal Republic of Germany, Soviet evidence could be, and in that case had been, corroborated by Western evidence. He also advised the Committee that in respect of another case which may result in a trial in Australia, he was in possession of summaries of evidence from a number of eye witnesses to alleged murder who are presently living in a Western country, and that he had been informed by a Western agency that it is in possession of material from the Soviet Union which tends to corroborate those statements. 13. The Committee was also concerned with access by defendants to prosecution evidence and documents and that any proceedings brought should be instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The defence will have full access to such evidence and documents before trial in accordance with the usual processes. The Bill already provides in proposed section 12 that proceedings can only be instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General. 14. The Committee expressed concern about the use of ex officio indictments. The DPP may present an ex officio indictment where the defendant consents or in certain other circumstances not likely to be relevant. The Attorney-General may present such an indictment at any time. In my view the Government cannot exclude the possibility that ex officio indictments may be required, e.g. where an accused consents or wishes to avoid the ordeal of both committal and trial proceedings, or where a crucial witness is unable or unwilling to travel to Australia twice. In view of the fact that any decision to proceed by way of ex officio indictment will be subject to the control of the court (see Barton v R (1980) 32 ALR 449 at 463-4) the interests of the accused are, in the Government's view, adequately protected. 15. I turn now to the Committee's suggestion that proposed section 7 of the Bill be clarified. The Committee considered that if the subsections are read conjunctively, a `serious crime' will be a war crime only if it satisfies both of the sets of criteria. Alternatively, if a less stringent disjunctive interpretation is placed upon these subsections, a `serious crime' will be a war crime if it falls within either set of criteria. The Committee felt some doubt whether subsections 7 (1) and 7 (3) should be read conjunctively or disjunctively. 16. I agree that it is desirable that the intended disjunctive effect of proposed sub-sections 7 (1) and (3) be clarified. The Bill will be amended accordingly. 17. The Committee was also of the view that having regard to the considerable increase in the number of suspected war criminals (from over 70 in the Menzies Report to the current situation where Mr Greenwood has over 450 individual files of which more than half are being actively pursued) the resources of the Special Investigations Unit and the Office of the DPP be reviewed. The needs of the Special Investigations Unit will be addressed by the Government in the budgetary context. 18. In addition, the Government has already agreed to meet Opposition concerns in relation to the progress of investigations by providing for the tabling of Annual Reports. 19. Finally, I again express my appreciation to the Committee for its report. Senator TATE —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator HILL(South Australia)(7.07) —I rise on behalf of the Opposition to give a preliminary response to the Government's response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on matters relating to the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1987. The response is appreciated. The time that the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, has indicated will be allowed for consideration of the response before further debate on the Bill takes place is also appreciated. However, whilst stressing that these comments are preliminary-the response has obviously been in our hands for only a short period-the response does not appear to meet some of the major concerns that were expressed by the Committee, nor does it appear that the Government gives the assurances that we believe are necessary to ensure justice in these potential cases. The matter must be put in a correct context. In this instance the context is that of a Bill that has raised enormous concerns in communities of those who originated from what is now the Soviet Union or from other eastern European countries. That they might now be prosecuted for crimes which allegedly occurred some 40 years ago on the basis of Soviet and Eastern bloc evidence is beyond their comprehension. It must be remembered that many of these individuals are regarded as enemies of the state by the states from which evidence will have to be adduced in the prosecution of these alleged crimes. These individuals and communities therefore see the cases of prosecutions under the Bill in question as communist states finally catching up with them for their opposition to communism, despite the time that has passed and despite all the freedoms which we claim and believe protect us in this, their new country. It is easy for us to say that the Australian judicial system, with all its safeguards, will protect these people from improper abuse. In the case of my generation, on the one hand, few have been through the horrors that were experienced by these people. It is much harder for them to have faith in the state. On the other hand, if there are in our midst some who have committed horrendous crimes, even though they were committed in wartime and a long time ago, in the opinion of this side of the chamber they should be brought to justice. But therein lies the dilemma which requires of government, we would suggest, very careful preparation of cases and great sensitivity to the interests of those who fear improper prosecution. The lessons of the United States experience, which were reviewed by the Committee, albeit not in criminal cases, give us reason to take great care. The general direction of the Committee's conclusions was that great care was needed. The defendants in these trials should not be disadvantaged as against those in any other criminal prosecution that we might institute in this country. Therefore, in the unique circumstances of these trials, special support might be necessary to ensure justice for the defendant. Justice for both sides in a criminal prosecution is obviously of paramount importance. Therefore we said that the trials should be conducted in Australia and that they should be before Australian juries, not on the basis of evidence taken, say, before Soviet prosecutors, as has been the case in some of the United States prosecutions, and that defendants should be given the full protection of cross-examination before an Australian jury. The Government in its response does not give that assurance. Rather, it says that it regards letters it has exchanged with officials in the Soviet Union, Hungary and Yugoslavia as bona fide undertakings that witnesses will be able to travel to Australia to give evidence. But, firstly, as we stressed in the report, witnesses from these countries have never in the past been permitted to leave their home states to give evidence in Western countries. We said that formal agreement would therefore be necessary to ensure justice before prosecutions were launched. In fact, when one peruses the letters one finds that they are said to be specifically subject to government approval. That government approval has not yet been given, and it seems that the Australian Government is not going to seek it; it is simply going to rely on the letters as bona fide evidence. The letters are, to our side of the chamber, simply no more than statements of intent. We are pleased to note that the Government undertakes to provide the defence with full access to prosecution evidence and documents before the prosecution in the usual way, but we said in the report that, because of the unique circumstances, the difficulty the defendant will have to get up his defence-to go to the Eastern bloc countries to interview witnesses, inspect sites and do what is necessary to prepare a defence in the Australian circumstance or even a Western nation circumstance-the Government must ensure before prosecutions are commenced that the defendant is able to do so. We put it in recommendations 9.26 and 9.27. The report states: 9.26 The Committee is also of the view that, in the overall interests of justice, prosecutions should not proceed until the Government is satisfied that any defendants in such prosecutions will have access to defence witnesses and be able to visit such sites and examine such archives as is reasonable in the preparation of a defence. 9.27 Further, the Committee is of the view that, when negotiating about the availability of witnesses and documents, the Attorney-General should ensure that the reasonable needs and interests of possible defendants are taken into account. Such assurances have not been given by the Government in its response today. That is a matter of disappointment to this side of the Senate and something that the Opposition will have to take into account when it determines how it will treat the Bills that will be further debated in this chamber. The statement on ex officio indictments goes some of the way towards the requirements set out in the Committee's report. I only repeat that, to the Committee, ex officio indictments do not seem proper in this type of case. Furthermore, the flexibility that the Government is now going to give the Attorney-General to give legal aid goes some way towards meeting our concerns, but we would have preferred an absolute assurance. We remain concerned about many aspects of this matter. The list of alleged war criminals is constantly growing. The Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) in his response says that there are now over 450 cases. We are pleased to note that, as recommended by the Committee, the Government will review its funding for the special investigator in these circumstances. But I put it to the Senate that to properly investigate and exonerate those who should be exonerated will cost this Government huge sums of money, and one doubts that when the crunch comes such money will be expended. How long it will be before individuals are exonerated, goodness only knows. We on this side of the chamber find that a most uncomfortable position. We are still concerned that it is the easier cases that will be prosecuted, and perhaps not the worst crimes, which might be more difficult to prove. We are still concerned that the trials will amount to show trials-evidence of the Government taking action in this area. As we all know and as Mr Temby said in evidence, funds will run out and that will be the end of this exercise, and that, in the opinion of the Opposition, does not represent justice. We in the Opposition will further consider the Bill in the light of the Government's response put down this evening. We will consider it with great care and determine our detailed position before recommencement of the debate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(7.18) —The Government's response to the work of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs with regard to the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1987 illustrates the usefulness of many of the Senate committee inquiries. It has already demonstrated that the Government, upon fuller consideration of the Committee's report, has determined that there are a number of items with which it is in agreement. The Government has indicated, for example, with regard to recommendation (1) and recommendation (5) that it is willing to make amendments. With regard to the problem that the Committee picked up as to whether clauses 7 (1) and 7 (3) were to be read conjunctly or disjunctly, the Government has agreed that it will have the Bill amended. Even those items, although, as we have just heard, the Opposition might not necessarily be totally with the exercise, show on a positive note that movement has been made. Progress has been made as a result of the Committee report, and as such the Bill which the Government now intends to proceed with is even at this stage a better Bill than the one we had previously. I think it is important, particularly in the light of the Government's non-acceptance of recommendations (2) and (3), to refer to the fact that the Bill, in dealing with people who will be prosecuted for war crimes, is based upon the principle that these people will be treated no differently from other persons facing criminal charges in Australia. That principle is not totally accepted in the majority findings of the Committee report. Indeed, there are suggestions that one could easily read into the Committee report that it is seeking different treatment for people who are to be prosecuted by having, surrounding that, certain additional items. As Senator Hill has already said, the principle that underlies a number of his comments is also that there should be differing principles with regard to people who find themselves prosecuted in this situation. I suspect that that really is one of the dilemmas of the context we are facing. From the point of view of the prosecution of these acts on behalf of the community undoubtedly the correct approach is that there should be no difference. From the point of view of the defence, one can, however, see major problems in mounting a defence under these circumstances in terms of costs and other items. I think it is at that point that one can take heart that the Government has accepted the notion that the Bill, with regard to recommendation (5), will be amended to provide for discretion in the Attorney-General to authorise such legal and financial assistance as seems reasonable in the circumstance. One hopes that amendment will not be a reiteration of the previous type of situation whereby the Attorney-General has that type of discretion under other Acts anyhow but that this will in fact provide specific discretion, particularly on the financial assistance which may be necessary to carry out the types of things that Senator Hill has just referred to so that those people can have what we believe is an adequate defence. However, in saying that I want to make it very clear that our view is as it has been previously; that is, that people who are found in Australia by the Director of Public Prosecutions to have a sufficient case against them with regard to crimes of this nature should be subjected to prosecution. In our view it is not possible to say that such a time has elapsed that it prevents that occurring or that some other items mean that we can forget these things. It is not possible to forget about such items. It is necessary from the point of view of justice in our community to continue that prosecution. I am fully cognisant of the fact and, perhaps along with every other senator here, I have had a considerable number of representations on this issue. I believe what the Bill is seeking to do, to retain under Australian jurisdiction the entire operation of dealing with these crimes, is the way to go. We wish to bear the cost with regard to that so that anyone who is called upon to defend himself against such a prosecution will have the full benefit of the Australian legal system rather than the probable difficulties that such a person may find whether it be in a jurisdiction of the Soviet Union or in one of the other Eastern Bloc country or countries, for example, such as my colleague referred to today in Question Time, Israel. Undoubtedly Australians take great pride in their judicial system and in the fairness of that system to be able to adjudicate. Of course, it is not an infallible system. From time to time we seek to improve it. Probably every senator in this place could think of ways in which it could be further improved. We believe it is one of the best systems in the world in terms of the defence of human rights and enabling a person who is prosecuted for crime to have the best means of defending himself. It is upon that basis that we continue to express our support for this legislation. However, I would not want that to be taken as a definitive statement with regard to the committee stage of this Bill. Fairly obviously, we have not yet seen the type of amendments that the Government wishes to bring forward. We have had a statement that it will be bringing them forward so I certainly cannot commit my party ahead of time to supporting amendments which we have not seen. Upon the production of those amendments, in the debate we will be able to indicate our support or otherwise for them. But I can express our support for the principle of prosecution of people who have committed such murderous and barbarous acts. If we have a case to bring against such people that the Director of Public Prosecutions believes will stand up in our courts we believe it is a matter of justice that such prosecutions should proceed. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(7.26) —The Opposition would like to keep debating this matter. Therefore, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —On behalf of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) I seek leave to make a statement relating to the new Parliament House, to move to take note of the statement and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Over the past nine years, successive Ministers have had the responsibility of reporting to honourable senators on progress with the new Parliament House. The achievements over that period can now be marked by what will probably be the last such report to be presented within the confines of the building that has served this nation for 61 years as the home of its national parliament. The new building, as all honourable members can see for themselves, a few short weeks from its official opening by Her Majesty, is virtually complete. As I informed the Parliament last October, it will be ready for its formal opening on 9 May and to commence operations in August. I will now provide a budget update for the three months period from September to November. The revised building budget for the three months to November 1987 now stands at $897.46 million, with another $158.85 million for the non building items. This includes a transfer of $11 million from the non building items budget to the building budget. The total project budget is therefore increased from $1047.8 million at August 1987 prices to $1056.31 million at November 1987 prices. This updating includes $4.68 million for the effects of inflation in the three months period. Additional components to cover costs outside the control of the Parliament House Construction Authority have been an allowance of $2.41 million for the cost of industrial disputes, $1.42 million for reinstatement of previously deleted works including two Ministers' suites and the area to house the Australian Protective Service in the southern area of the building. There is still a need to provide for a revised layout to the Ministerial Media Group area for the third additional Minister's suite. After discussion between the Minister for Administrative Services and PHCA the Authority has decided to reject all tenders for this work as being too high. Subject to agreement by the Joint Standing Committee on New Parliament House a revised layout will be achieved by effecting minimal changes to the Ministerial Media Group area at less than 50% of the lowest tenderer's price. I confidently and with some pride look forward to presenting my next progress report from our new and permanent Parliament House. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Short, I must warn you that you have only three minutes. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(7.27) —Do you wish to start the debate at this time, Mr Deputy President? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Short, I think you should continue. You may be able to deal with the matter in two minutes. If not, you may continue your remarks later. Senator SHORT —Mr Deputy President, I can assure you that I will not be the only person wishing to speak on this subject and if I were to speak for only two minutes I would be treating this Parliament and the taxpayers of Australia with the contempt that the Government has treated them with by bringing in this document which purports to be a progress report and budget update on the cost of the new Parliament House for the three-month period to November 1987. In other words, it is almost five months out of date anyway. It is an absolutely appalling document. It is one sheet of paper. Half of it pats the Government, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) and the Parliament House Construction Authority on the back. It has at most one hundred words, about two paragraphs, on the cost of the project, which is now, according to this document, $1,056m. To claim that the Government can honestly say that it is reporting accurately to the Parliament and to the taxpayers of Australia in a document of this nature is almost unbelievable. As I said, it is typical of the contempt with which the Government treats the Parliament increasingly-more so the taxpayers of Australia. Let me say first of all that once again there is a blow-out in the Parliament House budget. We on this side of the Parliament have been accused of being destructive and critical of this project. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.30) —I notice that there is a considerable list of speakers for the adjournment debate, because this is the only time this week when there is an opportunity for an adjournment debate, Friday being limited by the movement of aeroplanes and Tuesday and Thursday being limited by the Estimates committees. It is my intention to draw the attention of the Senate to two contributions to public debate in Australia-one by my colleague the Hon. Ian Macphee on the question of privatisation and public interest, and the other by the Hon. Walter Jona, a former Minister in the Victorian Government and a former member of the Victorian Parliament, and a very distinguished one, concerning some matters affecting the Liberal Party of Australia. The Hon. Ian Macphee's paper, delivered to the conference `Preparing for Privatisation' in Sydney on 16 November 1987, discusses some of the factors which should be considered by any political party considering privatisation and the privatisation debate. It had been my attention to read that speech, but I shall just draw attention to the conclusion, which says: The privatisation debate must get down to basics. Is it still an appropriate philosophy to try to provide services to Australians in decentralised locations at prices and with access not too different from those available in our major cities? Mr Macphee develops other parts of the argument. Walter Jona's paper, which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 January this year, follows certain moves which were mooted within his division of the Party-the Victorian division-concerning some of the internal matters, such as preselection, within the Liberal Party. Because of the number of speakers on the adjournment, I seek leave to table both of the papers. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I table the papers. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(7.32) —I rise to bring to the attention of the Senate the considerable concern which is being expressed not only in Victoria but throughout Australia about recommendations that are being brought down regarding the provision of funding for the care in nursing homes of the frail aged. The aged care industry-not just the private operators of nursing homes, many of whom have been wrongly maligned and accused of ripping off the public whereas they have a commitment to the care of the frail aged, but also the voluntary sector, such as the churches and charities which run nursing homes-and the staff of community based nursing homes have joined forces with the dedicated nursing staff, the directors of nursing, the executive officers, the families of nursing home residents and even the frail aged themselves in nursing homes to express their concern about nursing home funding. Over the past two weeks I have attended two public meetings. Public meetings have been held in Forest Hill, where 600 people attended; in Camberwell, where over 1,000 attended; in Footscray, where over 200 attended; and Moorabbin, where over 400 attended; and tonight, while we are meeting, it is expected that 600 people will be at Ivanhoe discussing this very issue. This is a large turnout of the public to express its concern about nursing home funding. Peak bodies associated with nursing homes, the Victorian Government itself-a Labor government-and the Liberal Party have called upon the Federal Government for wider consultation and an examination of the impact of the care aggregated model-CAM-before final decisions are made regarding levels of funding. I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate a recommendation from the Victorian Labor Government to the Australian health Ministers at a conference on 6 March 1988. That recommendation was: That the implementations of SAM and CAM- the funding levels for nursing homes- be deferred in those States where significant reductions are involved until a thorough assessment of its impact on standard of care in nursing homes have been indicated. Even the Labor Government itself in Victoria is expressing concern about how Victorian nursing homes are being treated. One of the problems is that the nursing home situation in Victoria is different from that in other States. Victoria has fewer nursing home patients per head of population over 75 years of age, and therefore the dependency rate of those people in nursing homes is much higher. The present suggested method of funding of nursing homes will significantly affect those States where nursing home dependency rates are higher. Victoria is one of those States, and South Australia is another. The people of those States are fed up and they are expressing their concern by turning out at public meetings in numbers which have never been seen before in the history of nursing home care in this country, and they are telling the Government that it is wrong. The industry is saying that the Government has not consulted with it. It is also saying that it is not prepared to test the levels of funding which the Government is recommending. The Opposition has asked the Government to trial the levels of nursing home hours per patient in a government nursing home to demonstrate and test whether the standard outcomes which have been set, the quality standards we would expect for a dignified end to anybody's life in a nursing home, can be achieved. The industry claims that if the number of nursing hours per patient falls below current levels patients will suffer. In fact, we have been presented with 18 areas in which that will occur. I give the example of the Victorian Aged Services Peak Council, which carried out a study last year on 24 nursing homes. Eighty-two per cent of the residents of those nursing homes required complete assistance when bathing or showering. Sixty per cent of them were incontinent; but only 20 per cent of them, given the current levels of funding, could be bathed daily. So the rest go unbathed, using sponges on the intervening days. The industry claims that patients will be left in bed longer, that physical, medical and pharmaceutical methods will be required to reduce demands on nursing hours and that other measures of care will decrease. We are looking at returning to a level of nineteenth century care for the frail aged. One of the other things that concern me is that if this situation continues, nursing home staff will leave the geriatric scene in droves. It is not a popular area for nursing staff to work in even now, and it will be even less popular as demands increase. A number of studies have shown that nursing home staff carry out an enormous number of lifts. In fact, one study carried out in a nursing home in Melbourne showed that three staff members on a seven-hour shift made 127 lifts, possibly of heavy patients. Some of our Public Service departments recommend that people do not lift more than 16 kilograms, so we begin to see what incredible demands are being made already on nursing home staff. They will leave the area. It will become unfashionable and unacceptable to work in nursing homes. It will be not only the current residents of nursing homes but also future residents who will suffer the long term effects of this departure of dedicated committed nursing home staff from our nursing home scene. I am not going to go into all the details this evening. The Opposition raised a number of major points in a debate on a matter of public importance in the House of Representatives this afternoon, and I will not reiterate those points tonight. If the Government does not respond to public pressure to demonstrate the viability of its proposals and test them, I will be compelled to present this issue in more detail to the Senate at a later date. I ask the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) to heed the concern of the industry, the families of nursing home residents, the residents themselves and the Government of Victoria and to examine thoroughly the implementation of the care aggregated module until its impact on those States where significant reductions in nursing hours will be experienced are evaluated. In addition, I ask the Government to demonstrate that the levels of nursing hours per patient that it will be funding can, in a trial, provide the quality of care that the frail aged in our community deserve. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(7.39) —This morning it was my pleasure to be able to attend the launching of the Australian Good News Bible by the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, the Honourable Lionel Bowen. This, of course, is not the first Good News Bible, but it is an historic first Australian edition. It was wholly produced in Australia; indeed, it was typeset, printed and bound in Australia especially for Australia's Bicentenary. Senator Chapman —May I borrow it? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —The honourable senator may indeed borrow it. I hope he will read it besides borrowing it. There was a video presentation to go with it which vividly illustrated the use of the Bible in Australia from the days of the beginning of settlement in 1788. In fact, there is a very interesting section written into the front part of the Bible which tells of the British preparations for Australia as a remote penal colony which ignored spiritual needs. No clergy were to come to Australia. The manifest for the First Fleet, among the 700 spades and 8,000 fish hooks-the British must have thought that there were plenty of fish to collect over here-listed just one Bible. But the English Christian people put pressure on the English folk and, indeed, William Wilberforce, the gentleman who was famed for doing away with slave trading, was one of the people who persuaded the Government to send out a chaplain, Richard Johnston. I was very interested to know that it was finally agreed to send out 2,000 Bibles with him. The original Bible of Richard Johnston from way back in 1788 is now held in St Philip's Church, York Street, Sydney. In two short centuries the Bible has indeed become a book of immeasurable significance to Australians of all kinds-Aboriginal people, the white settlers and recent migrants as well. In 1807 the British and Foreign Bible Society was first formed in England and in 1817 Lady Macquarie who was then the wife of the Governor of New South Wales started the Auxiliary Bible Society in Australia. The one thing that interested me in this new Bible was the lovely colour plates which feature paintings by some of Australia's best artists. Indeed, there is a picture in this Bible by Pro Hart. Many people admire his paintings and there are very many of them all round Australia and probably overseas as well. I was very interested to see his picture. He has done some very lovely paintings. We had the opportunity to look at the originals at the National Press Club this morning. This Bible is written in a language that all people can understand. It has quite a deal of Australian language in it. I hope that people will not only acquire it, but that it will also be read. I was interviewed by some of the radio stations over there. I was asked whether I thought the language of this Bible was as great and as lovely as that in some of the old editions. I said that I thought that people these days seem to like to be able to read it in their own language and this is what the Bible Society has tried to provide. Senator Michael Tate, the President of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, received four copies of it for use in what is called the upper room or the room that has been provided for prayer and meditation. I believe that it was indeed a very special occasion this morning. I was glad to be able to get leave to take part in it. Senator Chapman —I could not get leave. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I must have asked before the honourable senator. It was a gathering of many Christian folk from around this area and quite a number of our members of Parliament were able to attend. I just want to put on record the important occasion that it really was. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(7.45) —While Senator Peter Baume has said earlier that the Estimates committees have restricted the time that senators have to discuss ordinary matters, I think that they have also served to focus on the matter that I want to raise this evening which is of particular concern to me; that is, the mounting evidence that has come to my attention, which I will detail a little later, that the Australian Taxation Office is determined to press ahead with the concept of the Australia Card revisited. The background to what concerns me is as follows: on 18 February 1987, the Treasurer, Mr Keating, wrote to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts advising that the Cabinet had given an in principle approval for expenditure of some $693m over a 10-year period to pay for redevelopment and re-equipment of computer systems for the Australian Tax Office. In the same letter the Treasurer requested the Public Accounts Committee to consider the matter and to report back to enable a request for tender to be made by June 1987. The first submission was received from the Australian Tax Office on 27 February 1987. Further information was sought by the Committee and obtained and then a public hearing was held on 30 April 1987. The worrying thing that has come from those submissions and from the public hearing in April 1987 has been detailed by the Public Accounts Committee. It makes very worrying reading. The Committee stated: . . . the Committee was concerned that the ATO did not have a fallback position for the possible situation where the Australian Card proposal did not proceed. The Committee found that the ATO's Information Systems Plan had a clear agenda for implementing the Australia Card proposal but did not document any alternative courses of action. Further evidence showed that in terms of existing systems the dividend and interest matching process that it has at the moment is its major activity. The Tax Office stated: We- that is, the Tax Office- are only able to match, by computer, in the region of 60 per cent of the transactions which we receive. In further evidence it was stated: If we had nothing more than this new equipment- which will cost $693m of taxpayers' money- and the associated systems, but we did not have the facility of the number- that is, the Australia Card- used internally and externally (it is uncertain that) the 60 per cent would increase very much at all. However, it did go on to say that the Tax Office would benefit by being able to identify better areas where there should be selective audits. Subsequent to that after the election was held and a new Public Accounts Committee was appointed, some private briefings were held to bring the new Committee up to date with relevant evidence. Following upon that a public hearing was held on 23 March 1988 and a written submission was made to the Committee prior to that public hearing. The evidence was quite concerning because it clearly demonstrated that the only savings that the Tax Office had decided to show over the 10-year period was some $516m in staff savings. There were no projected revenue figures. But more worrying still was a continued disclosure that a numbering system is still intrinsic to any proposal the Tax Office has. In the written submission I first came to terms with a new number, a CIN number, a common identifying number. In the evidence that was given-I might say that Mr Boucher attended that hearing together with four of his officers-there was much discussion about this common identifying number. I asked Mr Boucher, `Does the common identifying number presently exist?'. He answered, `No'. I asked him whether, should such a number be introduced, it would be considered that it should have external powers which would require legislative change. Mr Boucher replied that that was a matter for the Government to decide. Since the Australia Card had its demise there has always been an uneasy feeling, in view of the requirement that it would be subject to regulation which could be disallowed, that we would see its spectre present itself again. I think it was Gertrude Stein who said that a rose is a rose is a rose. Perhaps we could say in present parlance that the Australia Card is an identity card is a CIN number. The reason I have chosen to raise this matter tonight-- Senator Gareth Evans —The proceedings are now not being broadcast, you know. You do not have to worry about all this rhetoric. Nobody is listening. Senator BISHOP —The essence of what I have to say is important to the people who spent hours, months, protesting and bringing to the attention of the Australian people the dangers that the Australia Card posed to their freedoms. Senator Chapman —Senator Evans does not care about individual freedoms. Senator BISHOP —We have noticed that from time to time. The important thing is that the Australian public should be placed on notice that again they will be faced with an attempt to foist upon them a national identification numbering system. When Mr Boucher was giving evidence I asked him, `Did the Tax Office think of the ID card itself or did someone else take the idea to you?' Following some further discussion, Mr Boucher subsequently answered in these terms: I cannot, off-hand, recall exactly who else might have had the idea that there were advantages in the external use of a common identifier number. It is an idea that certainly has commended itself to me. Right through the submissions that have been received there is a common theme-that nowhere is the total expenditure of almost $700m of taxpayers' money justified if such a common identifier number is not introduced, whether it is called a high integrity tax number, which in earlier evidence was said to be on a par with the Australia Card but without a photograph, whether it is the CIN number, or whether it has some other name. The important thing that needs to be addressed here-I have no doubt whatever about it-is that there is a proper need to update the equipment that is presently used by the Australian Tax Office. I laud its every effort to make itself more efficient and therefore able to serve the people of Australia better. Also on 23 March 1988 I questioned Mr Seymour, who was one of the officers in attendance, about whether the lines that presently exist between the mainframes at Deakin and the mainframes at Parkes were secure. He said that no scrambling device was used on those lines. Indeed, I asked whether those lines could be hacked into. Specifically I asked: So, theoretically at this time it would be possible for a hacker to tap into that information? Mr Seymour replied: Let me say that the type of hacking depends upon the devices that the person may have. For instance, you would be aware that in the US the usual hacking terminology is with reference to dial in-people who have a telephone and they can make a connection into a network because that network will respond to a dial in from a telephone. That type of capability is not available in our network. I then asked: But there are some extraordinary hackers, too, are there not-the sort of person who managed to get into the NASA network-an extraordinary hacker could tap in? Mr Seymour replied: Yes, through Telecom facilities. So I draw to the attention of the Senate and, indeed, the general public my concern that if an attempt is made to foist upon the Australian public again an equivalent of the Australia Card, when we already have evidence that the existing networks are not secure, I think the debate that raged prior to the last election will truly and properly rage again. People ought to be vigilant in protecting their freedom at all times. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(7.55) —I do not make a habit of speaking on the adjournment. In fact, I have never spoken on the adjournment, and I may never speak on it again. I must do so tonight because tonight in Alice Springs a meeting is being convened by the Alice Springs Town Council to discuss the disaster caused by the Easter weekend floods in Alice Springs which resulted in serious loss of life and a great deal of property damage. It also caused the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to make a most regrettable and untrue statement in which he placed the blame for the deaths caused by the floods directly on the heads of the Aboriginal people of Central Australia, and Alice Springs in particular, in their attempts to preserve and protect a sacred site in the Todd River which, according to the Chief Minister, have prevented his Government from implementing flood mitigation proposals. I regret to say that the disaster also caused the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly to make nationally the same outrageous claims as the Chief Minister. In fact, in the 3 April edition of the Sunday Territorian under the heading `Sacred site to blame says Vale' the following article appears: The Legislative Assembly Speaker, Mr Roger Vale, has entered the debate over the Todd River's sacred site, blaming it for Alice Spring's devastating flood. `The sacred site has prevented a flood mitigation dam being built in the northern end of the Todd River,' an angry Mr Vale said. Statements such as that from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory in particular, even if there were some substance to them, would be regrettable at the best of times, considering that race relations in the Northern Territory are probably one of the major social issues of daily life in the Northern Territory, 25 per cent of our community being of Aboriginal descent. When such statements have absolutely no foundation at all in fact, it is a matter of even further regret. Last Easter Territorians, like most Australians, were preparing to pack up and head away for a holiday over the weekend. This Easter the residents of Alice Springs had other things on their minds. They were trying to cope with the worst floods in that town in living memory. The total rainfall recorded for the town between the Wednesday and Good Friday was 229 millimetres, which is more than 80 per cent of the average annual rainfall for the region. Most of the rain hit the town on the Thursday and police reported that five people had been washed away when the normally dry Todd River bed turned into a torrent. More than 300 people were evacuated from their homes in low lying areas of the town on Thursday and taken to emergency centres in three schools. It is generally acknowledged that the police and emergency services did a tremendous job in the circumstances. Unfortunately, as I said before, the same cannot be said of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Steve Hatton, the Minister responsible for the police and emergency services. Mr Hatton seized on the reports of five missing people during a series of television interviews at Darwin Airport and later in television interviews that he did in a studio and that were broadcast nationally. He blamed Aboriginal people for the deaths of the five people because they had blocked government moves to build flood mitigation dams because of a threat to a sacred site. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having contacted the Northern Territory police today, I was pleased to be advised that, although one person certainly has died and a second is missing, presumed drowned, the other three people who were originally reported as missing have since been found. The custodians of Aboriginal sites in and around Alice Springs have given their approval for flood mitigation work to be carried out, and I have the documentation that proves it. They have in fact expressed concern that the Northern Territory Government's desire to build a recreation dam was removing the emphasis from the much more urgent need for flood mitigation work. I have in my possession some correspondence between the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Authority, the Northern Territory Government and the Alice Springs Town Council. That documentation will prove the falseness of the claims made by the Chief Minister. In order to save the time of the Senate tonight I seek leave to have this correspondence incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- ALICE SPRINGS TOWN COUNCIL Todd Street Alice Springs, N.T. 5750, Australia. Telephone: (089) 52 2733 52 2834 52 2912 Telex: 81352 Please address all correspondence to: The Town Clerk, P.O. Box 1071, Alice Springs, N.T. 5750 To: K. W. Bowden 28th August, 1984. The Director, Mr. R. Ellis, Sacred Sites Authority, P.O. Box 1890, DARWIN. N.T. 5794 TODD RIVER FLOOD MITIGATION Dear Sir, Council has requested the Department of Transport and Works to undertake a full flood mitigation strategy for Alice Springs, such a study to include any need for a channel in the Todd River within the Municipal Boundaries to contain a flood with a return period of 20 years within the river banks. Support for this study has been requested of the Chief Minister and the Honourable, the Minister for Mines and Energy. Council's decision to press for flood mitigation in the Todd River as a matter of urgency has been taken in the light of the Territory Government decision not to proceed with a dam on the Todd River and the damage likely to accrue to public and private assets resulting from a major flood in the Todd. Nor can the possible loss of life in such an event be neglected. Obviously any channel in the Todd River bed within the Municipal boundaries is likely to lead to the loss of a significant number of trees-such interference may affect trees which are sacred sites, other sacred sites or sites of significance. Other constraints in the river are likely to be services such as: Roads, Telecom, N.T. Electricity Commission, Water Supply, Sewerage, Gap Pipe Linc. ABORIGINAL SACRED SITES AUTHORITY (089) 81 4700 P.O. BOX 1890, DARWIN 5794 4/83 17th September 1984. E. R. Mitchell Esq., Town Clerk, Alice Springs Town Council, P.O. Box 1071, ALICE SPRINGS, N.T. (Your Ref: A2.6) Dear Roy, RE: TODD RIVER FLOOD MITIGATION I acknowledge with thanks your letter dated 28th August last concerning a proposed meeting to be held at 6.00 p.m. on 17th September 1984 to begin preliminary discussions on any possible flood mitigation works in the Todd River. I am pleased to accept your invitation to attend this meeting. As you will be aware, the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the proposed recreation lake recommends as a matter of urgency, systematic inquiry into all flood mitigation techniques available for Alice Springs together with a detailed Flood Plain Management Study. It would be my hope that this study would proceed as a matter of urgency and that questions as to the establishment of a channel in the Todd River bed will be dealt with as part of this strategy rather than as an isolated and un-coordinated initiative with respect to possible flood mitigation. Any comment or advice I might provide therefore, will at this stage be dependant upon eventual provision of details of a co-ordinated strategy. Yours sincerely, R. W. ELLIS, Director ABORIGINAL SACRED SITES AUTHORITY (089) 81 4700 P.O. BOX 1890, DARWIN 5794 84/83 24th September 1984. K. W. Bowden Esq., Town Engineer, Alice Springs Town Council, P.O. Box 1071, ALICE SPRINGS, N.T. 5750 (Your Ref: A6.2) Dear Mr. Bowden, Thank you for your letter dated 20th September last regarding current investigations with respect to the initiation of works within the Todd River to assist with flood mitigation strategies. As I explained at the meeting with the Alice Springs Works and Parks Committee, the Authority would be pleased to offer its full co-operation in the determination of a proper strategy in such works as a matter of urgency. I have discussed this matter with some of the custodians who have indicated that they would be pleased to participate in an inspection of the Todd River in order to identify areas of traditional concern to them and to suggest possible initiatives with a view to assist in flood mitigation. Mr Wenten Rubuntja, Chairman of the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Authority has suggested to me the possibility of sand removal from a number of natural water holes within the Todd River which would have the benefit of not only acting as flood mitigation ponds but also might offer potential for recreation and enjoyment by the Alice Springs residents. I have asked Mr David Brooks of our Alice Springs Office to contact you in the hope that a joint inspection of the Todd can be carried out in the near future. Thank you for your co-operation and assistance. Yours sincerely, R. W. ELLIS, Director ALICE SPRINGS TOWN COUNCIL Todd Street Alice Springs, N.T. 5750. Australia Telephone: (089) 52 2733 52 2834 52 2912 Telex: 81352 Please address all correspondence to: The Town Clerk P.O. Box 1071, Alice Springs, N.T. 5750 RG/7 K. W. Bowden, 28th September, 1984, The Director, Aboriginal Sacred Sites Authority, P.O. Box 1890, DARWIN. N.T. 5794 TODD RIVER-FLOOD CHANNEL Dear Sir, Your letter, reference 84/83, of 17 September regarding flood mitigation works in the Todd River is acknowledged. As you are aware from discussion with Council's Works and Parks Committee the possibility of a channel in the Todd River is in the very early investigation stage. The channel has been proposed to Council as an expedient which would assist immediately and fit in with later flood mitigation works. The Works and Parks Committee, and indeed Council shares your concern that such a channel is not constructed in isolation but as part of (if required) a total flood mitigation strategy. Council has requested the Minister of Transport and Works to have his Department undertake such a strategy as a matter of urgency but to date has met with little success in this regard. It is envisaged that most flood mitigation works would be carried out outside the Municipal boundaries, i.e. upstream of the Town Area and hence outside Council's area of control. In addition Departmental Officers have special knowledge of the Todd through their Recreation Lake investigations. Thank you for your assistance to date in this matter. Yours faithfully, K. W. BOWDEN Town Engineer DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND ENERGY Minerals House, 58 Hartley St., Alice Springs, N.T. 5750 Post Office Box 2330, Alice Springs, N.T. 5750 Telephone (089) 50 3611; Telex AA81230: Vocadex (089) 50 3332 JC:dm:31 Aboriginal Sacred Sites Authority Alice Springs ALICE SPRINGS CUSTODIANS ABORIGINAL SACRED SITES PROTECTION AUTHORITY P.O. BOX 3656 ALICE SPRINGS N.T. 5750 Dear Custodians I write to thank you for the permission you have given for flood-warning works at Wigley's Gorge. We expect this equipment to substantially increase the warning time of flooding, and to improve the forecasting of its extent. Please rest assured that your accession to this request has not been, and will not be, interpreted as any diminution of your concern for the area. In particular this project has no connection with the proposed Old Telegraph Station Dam. I should also like to take this opportunity to assure you that the Division is also concerned for the amenity of places affected by its work, and is attempting to make all works as unobtrusive as possible. Yours faithfully R. FREYLING Regional Engineer Water A/S February 1985 Senator COLLINS —The documentation in fact proves that both the Alice Springs Town Council and the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Authority have been trying unsuccessfully since 1984 to get the Northern Territory Government to do something about flood mitigation in Alice Springs. In fact, the Northern Territory Government is utterly to blame for the lack of flood mitigation procedures in Alice Springs. It has been sitting on its hands for four years. The Alice Springs Mayor, Mrs Leslie Oldfield-not a Labor supporter, I hasten to add-has, to her eternal credit, pointed out in public statements that the Chief Minister's statement was totally false, as has the Director of the Northern Territory Government's Aboriginal Sacred Sites Protection Authority. Mrs Oldfield rightly pointed out that the Chief Minister's unfortunate statements have done nothing for race relations in the Northern Territory. In fact, I have no hesitation in saying that they were designed for the very purpose of worsening race relations in the Northern Territory. I shall later explain why. It appears that the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Steve Hatton, and his colleagues conveniently confuse flood mitigation work and a proposed recreation dam, which Aborigines have opposed, when it suits their need to score cheap and, in this case, extremely nasty political points. It would come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the debate on sacred sites in the Northern Territory to read a recent submission from the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Protection Authority on the Northern Territory Government's proposal to convert pastoral leasehold land into freehold. Musso Harvey, the Chairman of the Authority, which I remind honourable senators is the Northern Territory Government's own sacred sites protection agency, has stated in his submission to the Rural Land Use Advisory Committee, which has been established to investigate the proposal, as follows: In the Northern Territory it is no disgrace for a cabinet Minister to be associated with the desecration of a sacred site. It is a fact that in the Northern Territory we have had the situation where a Government Minister has been dragged into court charged with the desecration of a sacred site. Senator Gareth Evans —Who was that? Senator COLLINS —Marshall Perron. He, as the responsible Minister, ordered the desecration of a site which was properly registered by his own Government's agency, under Northern Territory law. Those were the days when the former Federal member for the Northern Territory, former Chief Minister Paul Everingham, was running the Northern Territory. All honourable senators know his very public views on Aborigines, their customs and culture. When the present Chief Minister, Steve Hatton, assumed the role as parliamentary leader of the Country Liberal Party (CLP) he distinguished himself from his predecessors-I have paid credit to him for it in the Northern Territory Parliament-by adopting a moderate and sensible approach to Aboriginal affairs. He took on the mantle of Chief Minister with a well earned reputation as a man who sought to foster better relations between Aboriginals and the non-Aboriginals in the Northern Territory. As Conservation Minister in the Tuxworth Government he had a very public falling out with Chief Minister Tuxworth on the question of the ownership and control of Ayers Rock. In that capacity he delivered a major statement to the Northern Territory Parliament in support of the return of Uluru National Park to its traditional owners, before being gagged by Mr Tuxworth, who proceeded to spend $300,000 on a national publicity campaign against the handover. Unfortunately, however, it has not taken Mr Hatton long to climb aboard the anti-Aboriginal band wagon. This has nothing to do with Steve Hatton's personal philosophy on Aboriginal affairs. I know personally that he is a small `l' liberal on all sorts of issues. Unfortunately Mr Hatton has failed to put his leadership stamp on the Northern Territory Government in the way that Everingham was able to. He has had a series of public rifts with Deputy Chief Minister Ray Hanrahan, who has resigned both as Deputy Chief Minister and as a Minister of Hatton's Government, and made statements that the CLP's days in the Northern Territory are numbered. He resigned his position as Deputy Chief Minister because, to quote Mr Hanrahan, he has nothing further to offer the CLP. Hanrahan leads one of the more extremist anti-Aboriginal sections of the CLP and has, as I have said, described the CLP as a spent force in the Northern Territory. Because of the continual attacks on Hatton's leadership he has to keep the party together by, as he sees it, pandering to the extremist elements in his party. That is why there have been regret- table public statements accusing Aboriginal custodians of Central Australia of causing the deaths of five people in the Alice Springs flood. Incidentally, as I have said, on checking with the police I find, fortunately, that that death toll has been reduced to two. One young Aboriginal woman is certainly dead, and one other person is missing, presumed drowned. If one were to be the head of the Government in the Northern Territory, one would have to govern for all of the people of the Territory. One would have to recognise that good race relations are an absolutely essential part of the progress of the Northern Territory. To try to score cheap and nasty political points based on a falsehood does not do the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory or his Government any credit at all. The Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory have publicly called on the Chief Minister to repudiate the statements he made on national media, and to publicly apologise for them. He has refused to do so. My personal view is that he must do one thing or the other: either have the intestinal fortitude to publicly acknowledge that he did make statements that were untrue, or resign his position as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The one thing that he certainly does owe the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory is a public apology, and the sooner he makes it the better. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 8.05 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Air Force Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 40. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Proposal 1988-No. 1-Annual Collection of Statistics on Public Sector Indebtedness. Census and Statistics Act-Statement No. 3 of 1988-List of Names and Addresses of Agricultural Establishments for Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Cheques and Payment Orders Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 37. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination 1988 No. 2. Companies (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 35. Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act-Declaration pursuant to subsection 9 (2), dated 18 February 1988. Currency Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 45. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1988 No. 9, together with Reasons for Determination, dated 25 March 1988. Determinations 1988- No. 11-Special Action Forces Allowance and others. No. 12-Temporary Rental Allowance. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 38. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Order 1988-No. 1-Fresh Fruits and Vegetables as amended (Amendment). Family Law Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 42, 44. Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 46. Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notices- No. 205-Northern Prawn Fishery-Restrictions on the Navigation of Boats prior to commencement of season. No. 206-Northern Prawn Fishery-(Joseph Bonaparte Gulf)-Mid-year closure. No. 207-Northern Prawn Fishery-Permanent Closures. No. 208-Northern Prawn Fishery-Ban on Daylight Trawling. No. 209-Northern Prawn Fishery (other than Joseph Bonaparte Gulf)-Seasonal Closures. No. 210-Northern Prawn Fishery-(Joseph Bonaparte Gulf)-Prohibition relating to the taking of Prawns. No. 211-Northern Prawn Fishery (other than Joseph Bonaparte Gulf)-Prohibition relating to the taking of Prawns. Foreign States Immunities Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 36. Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 43. Lands Acquisition Act- Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under subsection 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Land etc., acquired for- Pipeline Authority purposes-Wynwood, New South Wales. Meat Inspection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 34. Naval Defence Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 39. Public Service Act-Determinations 1988 Nos 23, 28, 30, 32-41, 43-48, 51, 53. Quarantine Act-Determination under section 86e, dated 17 March 1988. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determination made under the Health Authority Ordinance, dated 22 March 1988. Ordinances 1988- No. 13-Plumbers, Drainers and Gasfitters Board (Amendment). No. 14-Classification of Publications (Amendment). Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 33, 41. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Act and sections of an Act to come into operation on the dates specified: Family Law Amendment Act 1987-1 April 1988 (Gazette No. S 83, 25 March 1988). Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Act 1987-Subsections 3 (4) and 4 (4)-28 March 1988 (Gazette No. S 85, 25 March 1988). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 50) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Resources, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Resources aware that the cost to local Governments of the treatment and disposal of sewage is increasing rapidly, and that this cost increase may be a limiting factor when local Governments decide the safest and most effective means of sewage treatment and disposal. (2) Will the Minister examine the viability of implementing a national plan for the treatment and disposal of sewage to co-ordinate the responsibilities of local Governments in this area, with a view to ensuring its cost effectiveness and minimise impact on the man-made and natural environment. In view of the fact that it has been recently re-structured under new Federal Government legislation, will the Minister give consideration to having the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation undertake such a national plan for the treatment and disposal of sewage. Senator Cook —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Under the Constitution, the responsibility for water and sewerage services rests with the States and local governments who face widely varying difficulties in meeting the need for the economic provision of these services. In such circumstances the Commonwealth would face considerable difficulties in effectively coordinating the responsibilities of all local government authorities. The Commonwealth, however, can make an important contribution by making available information on possible options for the treatment and disposal of sewage and so enable local communities to decide on the best approach available for their own circumstances. I am therefore encouraging initiatives that will lead to the development of sewage treatment systems that are more economical to construct and operate. These initiatives include a ``State of the Art'' Publication by the Australian Water Resources Council (AWRC) which will examine low cost sewage treatment options for small towns; a national workshop to explore alternative water supply and wastewater disposal technologies and strategies for small towns; and addressing the research needs of water and sewerage systems for both large and small towns under the National Water Research Program. (3) It is the responsibility of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to decide on any involvement in resolving the problems of wastewater and sewage treatment. (Question No. 83) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: How much revenue does the Federal Government expect to gain from the new practice of reducing the taxable income threshold for young school leavers first entering the workforce. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The pro-rating of the tax-free threshold applies to those taxpayers joining the Australian workforce on a full-time basis for the first time and those arriving in or permanently leaving Australia. The gain to revenue from this measure is estimated to yield $85m in a full year, of which school leavers are expected to account for about 60%. (Question No. 115) Senator McLean asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 November 1987: Does the Treasurer agree that one effective way in which the Federal Government could discourage the advertising (and hence the consumption) of alcohol would be to amend the Income Tax Act so that companies could no longer claim the costs involved in alcohol advertising as a tax deduction; if so, when will the Government proceed with the necessary legislative changes (refer Answer to Question on Notice No. 48, Senate Hansard, 27 October 1987, p. 1345). Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It is not the Government's policy to prohibit the advertising of alcohol on radio and television. This policy is not inconsistent with the Government's concern at the health effects of excessive consumption of alcohol which were explained by the then Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health in her answer to Question on Notice No. 48 (Senate Hansard, 27 October 1987, p. 1345). Against this background, I consider that the denial of tax deductions for advertising expenses would be inappropriate. (Question No. 182) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: (1) In respect of the 1986-87 Annual Report of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Defence Force Ombudsman, why did the Minister decline to grant approval for an act of grace payment in the case of Sergeant K referred to at page 19 of the Report. (2) What is the Department's and the Minister's response to the Ombudsman's persistent conclusion that Sergeant K had categorically been denied natural justice. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Prior to Sergeant K's case being subject to consideration by the Defence Force Ombudsman my Department had investigated the matter and concluded that she had been treated unreasonably. Two act of grace submissions were put to the Minister for Finance who, as stated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman at page 19 of his 1986-87 Annual Report, declined to grant approval. I refer the honourable senator to a response by the Minister for Finance to a question without notice by Senator Schacht on the case of Sergeant K which appears at page 3470 of Hansard for 18 December 1987. (Question No. 218) Senator Bishop asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: What was the amount of money Telecom Australia spent on promoting time charged phone calls and how was it spent. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: The amount spent by Telecom on seeking community input to its proposed consultation process on the timing of local calls was approximately $608,900 which was expended on task preparation, research, printing and media coverage. (Question No. 229) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) How many apprentices has the Department employed since 1 January 1988. (2) How many apprentices have been employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. (3) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the numbers of these apprentices in their respective trades. (4) Can the Minister also provide a further breakdown showing in which State or Territory the apprentices have been employed. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Nil. (2) Nil. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 234) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 February 1988: (1) How many apprentices has the Department employed since 1 January 1988. (2) How many apprentices have been employed by Statutory Authorities for which the Minister is responsible since 1 January 1988. (3) Can the Minister provide a breakdown of the numbers of these apprentices in their respective trades. (4) Can the Minister also provide a further breakdown showing in which State or Territory the apprentices have been employed. Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) Nil. (2) One apprentice has been employed by the Australian Federal Police. (3) Yes: Apprentice Radio Trades-Electrical. (4) Yes: Australian Capital Territory. (Question No. 239) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: Can the Minister provide details of how many employees of the Department are presently listed as unattached (to a substantive position within the Department). Senator Bolkus —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The number of unattached officers currently employed by the Department of Social Security is approximately 4,900. The Department of Social Security has a high number of unattached officers at the Administrative Service Officer (ASO) Class 1 level. This results from the high turnover of staff and the normal recruitment practice of appointing staff at the base level as unattached officers and not allocating them to specific positions (attachment) until they are promoted. Approximately 240 of the 4,900 are above the base level of ASO Class 1. (Question No. 245) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: Can the Minister provide details of how many employees of the Department are presently listed as unattached (to a substantive position within the Department). Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I am advised that there were 147 permanent staff unattached in the Department of Finance as at 23 March 1988. (Question No. 246) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: Can the Minister provide details of how many employees of the Department are presently listed as unattached (to a substantive position within the Department). Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Unattached operatives...15 Leave without pay to other Australian/overseas organisations...12 Maternity leave without pay...2 Leave without pay...20 Postgraduate scholarship...1 Part IV mobility provisions...28 (Question No. 247) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: Can the Minister provide details of how many employees of the Department are presently listed as unattached (to a substantive position within the Department). Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Department of Transport and Communications currently has 1134 officers listed as unattached. This figure includes 140 officers who are inoperative; either on leave without pay or working with other organisations under the mobility provisions. Of the remaining operative unattached staff, over seventy-five per cent of the officers are at the base-level. Eighty per cent of these base-level staff are located in regional offices and include occupational categories such as air-traffic controllers, who are traditionally recruited unattached.