Wednesday, 20 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 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 nationwide, 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 programs of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 176 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 780 citizens), Schacht (from 28 citizens) and Vallentine (from 84 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that 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 80 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia. (2) Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium-137 and caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products. (3) Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, X-ray, etc.). (4) Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 140 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 for 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 Senators Jenkins (from 249 citizens) and Reid (from 249 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of Doctors and their patients and calls upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 17 citizens) and Watson (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and Senators assembled in Parliament The petition of certain Citizens of Australia points out the aged and disabled people who require accommodation and support in nursing homes are entitled to the highest possible standard and quality of nursing care. We, the petitioners, request the Parliament to ensure that provision of funds for nursing homes in Victoria is sustained at least at a level sufficient to maintain the high standard of care now available in nursing homes in the State. by Senators Hamer (from 347 citizens), Lewis (from 204 citizens), Robert Ray (from 203 citizens) and Zakharov (from 517 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 Senator Peter Baume (from 20 citizens). Petitions received. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —I give notice that, three sitting days after today, I shall move: That the declaration in the proclamation made by the Governor-General under subsection 6 (3) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S95 of 31 March 1988, be disapproved. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the joint statement on participative practices issued by the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and welcomes the recognition by those bodies that participative practices in the workplaces of Australia are most likely to be successful when agreed to by management and the employees; (b) notes that this approach is consistent with the approach advocated by the Opposition, which seeks to encourage the regulation of employee/employer relations by direct agreement between the parties; (c) supports the proposition that financial participation schemes such as employee share ownership and profit sharing can also contribute to the spirit of co-operation in achieving enterprise effectiveness and profitability; and (d) calls on the Federal Government to support the private member's Bill introduced into the Senate by the Opposition which removes the penalty under the income tax legislation which at present applies to shares issued to employees at a discount. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the renewed escalation of hostilities between Iran and the United States (US) in the Persian Gulf; (b) further notes the Australian Government's support for the US attacks on an Iranian missile boat and 2 oil rigs in retaliation for Iranian minelaying activities and the attack on a US Navy frigate; (c) expresses its concern that military action by the United States is still seen as the most appropriate response to such provocation by Iran; (d) notes too the blame being laid on Iran while we ignore the role of European nations and India in providing Iraq with a chemical warfare capability which they used to kill 5,000 Kurds in March 1988 in North East Iraq; and (e) calls on the Australian Government to support the concept of an international peacekeeping force in the Gulf and an effective ban on arms sales rather than condoning high profile cowboy antics by a nation state which only tends to inflame the situation rather than resolving the conflict. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, eight sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Export Control (Fees) Orders as amended (Amendment), as contained in Export Control Order No. 19 of 1987 and made under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations, made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short explanation of the concerns of the Standing Orders Committee. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Today is the last day on which the Committee can give a protective notice to safeguard its position while awaiting Minister's correspondence on the Orders. These Orders set fees for the inspection of certain animals for export. It appears as if the inspection fees for a certain category of animals have risen quite sharply, in one case from `$0.16' to `170 cents'. The accompanying explanatory statement does not explain why this has occurred. Parliament and public are entitled to know this so that it can approve of the policy. The Committee is entitled to know so that it can be satisfied that the Minister has adhered to the Principle that no reasonable Minister would so use his or her delegated powers to set a demonstrably unreasonably high fee. For the Committee's purposes, given its avoidance of any criticism of ministerial policy, the limits of what would constitute an `unreasonably' high fee are obviously relatively wide. The Committee has sought the advice of the Minister for Resources, Senator the Honourable Peter Cook. Migration Regulations Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to standing order 109A I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 5 and 6 standing in my name for six sitting days hence for disallowance of certain Migration Regulations. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short description of our scrutiny and the Committee's brief correspondence with Ministers. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- 1. Statutory Rules 1988 No. 313 set the levels of certain fees for permanent entry visas to Australia. The fee for persons already in Australia was $300. The fee for overseas business applicants who were in Australian business partnerships or joint enterprises, or who were intending to invest at least $500,000 in Australia was $1,000. While that fee was obviously a small proportion of such a business applicant's assets, the Committee felt that, on the grounds of principle, it should seek an explanation for the discrepancy between the levels of the two fees. Regulations may only set a fee at a level designed to recoup the cost of administration. Thus, the fee must be a fee for services rendered or to be rendered and not amount to tax of any kind. The Committee asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the Honourable Clyde Holding, MP, to explain the reasons for the discrepancy in the levels of the two fees. The Minister was good enough to explain that the $1,000 fee in fact amounted to a closer approximation of the real full cost of processing a business visa application at an overseas post, not taking into account the Central Office costs. Business migrants would obviously have a greater capacity to pay this more realistic fee for service. The Committee accepted this explanation. 2. Statutory Rules 1988 No. 314 repealed an earlier regulation that set a maximum limit to the fee that could be charged by a migration agent. The fee was $2 and obviously outdated. The Committee asked the Minister why the concept of a ceiling had been abandoned. The Explanatory Statement did not explain this. The Minister indicated that as a matter of policy the Government had decided to remove the regulatory control over the fee. It was difficult to police charges imposed by registered migration agents and inappropriate for Government to be attempting to regulate the market offering these services which should preferably be self-regulating, particularly in the light of the recent establishment of the Australian Migration Consultants Association. The Committee, in accepting the Minister's explanation, considered that all of this very significant information regarding both sets of regulations should properly have appeared, in the first instance, in the explanatory statement that accompanied the regulations to Parliament. The Minister noted this suggestion for future reference. 22 February 1988 The Hon. Clyde Holding, M.P. Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 18 February 1988 the Committee considered Migration Regulations (Amendments)(being Statutory Rules 1987 Nos. 313 and 314, tabled in the Senate on 17 February 1988). The Committee seeks your comments and advice on the question of certain fees. In Statutory Rules 1987 No. 313 regulation 4 amends regulation 29AB to provide that a fee of $1,000 will be charged to applicants for non-citizen conditional or permanent entry visas who, either have entered into business or joint venture partnerships, or intend to bring into Australia at least $500,000 of capital for the purposes of a business enterprise. This business visa fee appears to be at least 3 times as high as other visa fees. The reasons for the differences are not set out in the explanatory statement. As you know the courts have over many years held that a power to fix fees may not be exercised in such a way as to impose a tax. Thus in Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vict.) [1937-1938] 60 C.L.R. 263, Latham C.J. referring to a particular levy said at, page 276, that it was plainly a tax because- It is a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes, enforceable by law and is not a payment for services rendered. In Marsh v Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale [1966] 120 C.L.R. 572, Barwick C.J., at page 581, said of a particular Act that it . . . does contemplate that the Board may, to some extent, recoup itself for its administrative effort in considering the application and physically issuing the licence. [In this case] the fee bears no relation to the cost of administering a licensing system. It is evidently not a charge fixed as a reasonable fee for the issue of licences. Whilst that consideration may not always be decisive, in my opinion, the statute in this case authorised no more than fees which fall within this description. The instant fee certainly does not. In the light of these considerations the Committee would welcome your assistance in explaining the reasons for the imposition of the $1,000 fee as a cost recovery measure for services rendered to business visa applicants. Where large fee increases occur or where significant differences arise between fees for services that appear to be comparable in terms of administration costs, the Committee has found it very helpful for the explanatory statement accompanying the regulations to explain this. Such explanations can allay any concerns that fees had been set at relatively inappropriate levels. The Committee respectfully suggests that relevant future explanatory statements might address these points. Secondly, in Statutory Rules 1987 No. 314 regulation 7 repeals regulation 29 of the Principal regulations which had imposed a maximum of $2 on the fee that a migration agent might charge for services. Such a ceiling is now, of course, absurdly low. However, the general practice of providing for a reasonable maximum fee for services rendered is often followed in delegated legislation. As the explanatory statement does not explain why the maximum fee prescription has been repealed, it would be very helpful if you would provide the Committee with some background information and the reasons for this initiative. Your cooperation with each of the matters raised by the Committee would be much appreciated. Your sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman 24 March 1988 Senator Bob Collins Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 Dear Bob Thank you for your letter of 22 February 1988 seeking advice about the basis for charging a $1 000 fee for migrants seeking entry to Australia under the Business Migration Program (BMP). The fee represents the approximate cost of processing an application at an overseas post. This does not take into account costs incurred in Central or Regional Offices of the Department. You have pointed out that it is a significantly higher amount than that charged for other migration categories. The reason for this is that it represents a closer approximation of the full cost of processing than the charge for all other categories. It is considered that business migrants may have a greater capacity to pay for the cost of processing than other migrants and it is not unreasonable to recover this cost through a more realistic charge. Your letter also raised the question of the maximum fee which can be charged by a migration agent. The $2 fee was clearly unrealistic and outdated; however the decision to remove it also involved a matter of principle. Apart from the difficulty of policing all charges imposed by registered agents, I consider it inappropriate for a Government agency to be attempting to regulate the market. It would be preferable for this industry, like many others, to be self-regulating and it is likely that the recently formed Australian Migration Consultants Association may play a role in this area in the future. I have noted your suggestion that any future explanatory statements might address the kind of points you have raised. Yours sincerely (Clyde Holding) Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —A paper is tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Commonwealth Grants Commission-Report on General Revenue Grant Relativities 1988-Volume 1-Main Report-Volume 2-Appendixes and Consultants' Reports-section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973. Motion (by Senator Maguire) agreed to: That Senator Jones be granted leave of absence for the period from 12 April to 2 June 1988, inclusive, on account of ill health. The PRESIDENT —On behalf of all senators I ask Senator Maguire to pass on our best wishes to Senator Jones. We hope that he has a speedy recovery. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —I ask that General Business Notice of Motion No. 73 standing in my name and relating to the establishment of a Select Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals be declared as formal business. The PRESIDENT —Is there any objection to this notice of motion being taken as formal. Senator Lewis —Not formal. The PRESIDENT —The notice of motion is not formal. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —Pursuant to contingent notice and at the request of Senator Haines, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Haines moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. McLean, P. A.Black, J. R. McMullan, R. F.Burns, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Devlin, A. R. Vallentine, J.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Wood, W. R.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Panizza, J. H.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Stone, J. O.Chapman, H. G. P. Tambling, G. E. J.Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. M. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. Short, J. R.Button, J. N. Crichton-Browne, N. A.Evans, Gareth Hamer, D. J.Foreman, D. J. Archer, B. R.Jones, G. N. Parer, W. R.McKiernan, J. P. Sheil, G.Richardson, G. F. Teague, B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion Motion (by Senator Powell, for Senator Haines) proposed: That General Business, Notice of Motion No. 73, be called on forthwith and standing in the name of Senator Powell and relating to the establishment of a select committee have precedence over all other business until determined. Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.14) —I wish to make some comments about this motion which has been moved by the Australian Democrats without any warning to the Opposition. There seems to be some confusion in the Government ranks as to whether they were warned but I take it from what was said across the table by Senator Cook that there is some arrangement between the Government and the Democrats to enable this to happen. There have been meetings between the Government, the Democrats and the Opposition over the last week relating to the program which the Government has established for the rest of this session. I simply wish to make the point when we are dealing with a motion to bring on this matter, which will, of course, take a great deal of debate, that, as has been discussed at those meetings, there is a quite impossible program facing the Senate at this time. I do not have that program before me at the moment but it is a quite extraordinary legislative load, bearing in mind that it will include in the last two weeks legislation which will flow from the May statement. Ministers have indicated that the May statement may well contain matters of very considerable substance. Clearly, legislation which may go to matters of tariffs, for example, or matters of taxation is not legislation that can be dealt with as a matter of form and simply coughed through the Senate as though it were of no account. Probably of even greater significance is the fact that we are facing the prospect of legislation to bring on constitutional changes and referenda later this year. We have a rather farcical situation. It has been indicated by the Government that, having spent a great deal of money-millions of dollars-on establishing a Constitutional Commission, it is going to introduce into the Parliament proposals for constitutional change before it has the final report of the Constitutional Commission. That is a point worth making, because it discloses the blatantly political nature of the exercise the Government has undertaken with respect to constitutional change. What has been telegraphed by Ministers is that at the heart of the changes which are proposed to the Constitution are changes which will go to the role and function of this chamber. I mention that in the context of this debate because, quite clearly, it would be improper for measures of that sort to be brought before the Senate and not subjected to the most careful scrutiny and the fullest possible opportunity for debate. I have raised with the Australian Democrats the question of whether they will again join with the Government to gag debate in the context of these constitutional changes. I am pleased to say that I have received some reassurances from them in that regard. But the point is that the Senate faces a substantial legislative program which I have already indicated to the Government is not, with the best will in the world, capable of being met, even without the propositions that will flow from the May statement and from the constitutional proposals which, we are told, will be unveiled to a breathless Australian public on 10 May. When one looks at what the Government has in mind for those periods all one can say is that the likelihood is that the Senate will not, in any orderly way, be able to deal with the legislative burden the Government is proposing to put before it. It is in that context that the Opposition wishes to register the strongest possible protest to the Government about the arrangement it has made with the Senate to divert the Senate this morning into a debate on chemical pesticides. I put to the Government that it would be sensible, in terms of our achieving the Government's program, not to pursue this course of action. But, if it does pursue this course of action, we would expect to debate in a proper way in the Senate today the motion which the Democrats are now putting forward. I do not know whether the Government has been talking to primary industry. I suppose that it might have been. Perhaps, on the other hand, it is too busy sorting out its troubles in the right wing factions of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales to worry about what the agricultural industries of Australia think. But if the Government thinks that pulling this stunt is seen as being vaguely in the interests of the agricultural and export industries of this country, it is going around with its ears closed. This is a particularly foolish exercise on the part of the Australian Democrats. What is extraordinary is that they should have the collaboration of the Government in this exercise. I will not deal with the issues which are raised by this substantive motion at any length because this is not the appropriate debate in which to do it. Honourable senators interjecting- Senator CHANEY —I hear the caterwauling of the Australian Democrats as I speak. All I can say is that a party which requires only 6 or 7 per cent of the vote to get the representation it has here can afford to laugh at the interests of Australian primary producers. The Democrats can afford to do so because all they are seeking is some tiny corner of the vote to enable them to continue their operations in this chamber. They have no operations anywhere else. They have no prospect of taking part in the government of this country. They are engaged in a cynical exercise which bears no relation to the national interest. As far as the Opposition is concerned, the only point in prolonging this debate is to give the Government some chance to reconsider the particularly foolish stance that it has adopted with respect to this arrangement with the Australian Democrats. We oppose very clearly and very forcefully the proposal to bring on this matter for debate. We believe that it shows either that the Government has no real interest in its own program or that it has no sense. The running of the Senate chamber often indicates that the Government has very little sense. I am sorry that the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, is not present. Over recent months he has shown some realism in the handling of this place and in meeting the requirements of the Government's program. It is quite clear that Ministers who are present at the moment are acting in complete ignorance of that interest. In our view, this motion should be defeated and we should return to the program that is before us. As it is, we will spend the rest of today debating matters which have nothing to do with the Government's legislative program. That is not something that has been brought about by the Opposition; it has been brought about by the Government allowing the tail of this chamber to wag the dog. I believe that the Government should reconsider what it is doing and enable us to return to the business which we are paid to consider in this chamber. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.21) —I rise to support Senator Chaney's opposition to the motion that is before the chamber. So far as the matter of substance is concerned, I will have much to say. I point out to Government senators that there are already a number of inquiries into the effect of chemicals on primary industries in Australia which are being conducted by various bodies around Australia, including the Australian Agricultural Council. The Federal Government and the State governments have their own representatives on this body. So there is already a wide-ranging inquiry into this matter. I have been concerned about the nature of the proposal being put forward by the Australian Democrats for a wide-ranging inquiry into the effect of the chemical industry on Australian primary production. I draw the attention of Government senators to the ultimate effect which this might very well have on primary producers and Australian primary produce. After all, we have to market our products around the world. If our primary products are besmirched by the sort of inquiry which the Democrats are intending, it may very well put at risk all markets for Australian primary produce. That is why the coalition parties and I are opposed to this proposal of Senator Powell and the Australian Democrats. I have indicated that the debate on our side will be very wide-ranging unless the Government and the Democrats ultimately decide to gag it. There is very strong opposition by the Liberal and National parties to any wide-ranging inquiry into chemicals and their effect on primary produce. We are concerned that there may be an unfortunate consequence for Australia's primary produce on world markets. We have put this bluntly to the Government. I have spoken to a number of Government frontbenchers about my personal concern about what would happen as a result of a wide-ranging inquiry. There is at least one Government frontbencher in this chamber who is also very much concerned about it. How the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) fell for the two-card trick with the Democrats on this matter is beyond me, unless there was some deal done which not many of us know about. I suspect that some deal must have been done between the Democrats and Minister Kerin for this matter to be supported by the Government. I do not know what that deal was, but I suspect that there was a deal. It may very well be that the deal had something to do with the last election, because this proposal was first mooted at about that stage. There has clearly got to be some reason why the Government would be supporting this ridiculously wide-ranging inquiry when already inquiries are being conducted in this area by bodies as substantial as the Australian Agricultural Council which could surely report first before a Senate committee of inquiry is established. Having mentioned the nature of the debate which will take place and which, as Senator Chaney has indicated, will probably take all day-- Senator Robert Ray —No, it won't. Senator LEWIS —I hear Senator Robert Ray say, `No, it won't. I take it that that means Senator Robert Ray is prepared to support the Democrats in gagging us once again and I will be interested to hear what he has to say. As to the substance of the current motion before the chamber, the Liberal and National parties have been in conference with Senator Evans and the Government Whip in trying to get through the massive amount of legislation which is to be dealt with by this chamber before 3 June this year. I mention 3 June because I understand that the Australian Labor Party National Conference is to take place on 3 June or thereabouts, so the Senate has to get up on 2 June. We have a massive list of legislation which has to be dealt with by 2 June. To assist the Government to get through these arrangements we had agreed that we would deal with certain non-controversial Bills during our Thursday luncheon break. Tomorrow was to be the first day on which that would occur. We are supposed to be debating during the luncheon adjournment the Commonwealth Teaching Service Amendment Bill, the Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill and the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Amendment Bill. There will be a cognate debate on the Laying Chicken Levy Bill and the Laying Chicken Levy Collection Bill. I say to Senator Evans, who has walked into the chamber at this stage, to Senator Ray and to all the Government senators that they can wave goodbye to that so far as I am concerned. I cannot make a commitment as to whether we will oppose it or not at this stage because I have not had the opportunity, because of the nature of this debate, to discuss it with my Senate colleagues. I can assure them that my recommendation will be that we abandon that proposal for starters. That will mean that tomorrow we will not be going on with non-controversial legislation to try to help the Government out of the hole that it is digging for itself. The following week it is proposed to deal with the Norfolk Island Amendment Bill and the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, there will be a cognate debate on the Honey Marketing Bill, the Honey Export Charge Amendment Bill, the Honey Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill and the Honey Levy (No. 2) Amendment Bill and then, after that, the Admiralty Bill. The Government can find its own time to get that legislation through at some other period. It is not as if this legislation is terribly insignificant. The following week we were to deal with the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill which is listed for debate today. It now has no hope of getting on today. The Crimes (Torture) Bill, the National Board of Employment Education and Training Bill, the Audit Amendment Bill and the Fisheries Amendment Bill are all supposed to be listed for debate during the Thursday luncheon. This is being done at the Government's request, not at our request. We are trying to help the Government out of the hole it is in. The following week, that is, the week of the sittings of 23 to 26 May, during the luncheon hour we were to debate the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill, the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill, the Statutory Instruments Tabling and Disallowance Legislation Amendment Bill and the National Companies and Securities Commission Amendment Bill. That would have taken us up to 26 May. That would have still left us, having, one presumes, got through the other legislation, with a great long list of Bills which I will turn to in a few minutes. Senator Robert Ray —Come on. We are not going to support their motion. Let's finish it. Senator LEWIS —I am glad to hear that Senator Ray is indicating that the Government might have had a change of mind because that will save me reading out the whole of this paper over the next 20 minutes or so. Senator Boswell —Come on. Senator LEWIS —Would the honourable senator like to hear me reading it out? There are some other matters of very considerable concern to be debated in the next few weeks, such as the War Crimes Amendment Bill, the Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Amendment Bill-do honourable senators think the Democrats will gag that and that we will be able to push that through?-the Appropriation Bills, the customs tariff Bills and, in particular, and listed only for week nine of these sittings, the period covering 23 to 26 May, the Constitution alteration Bills. How are we going to fit the debate on those Constitutional alteration Bills into one week, I do not know. But at the end of that period of time, if this schedule were maintained, that would then leave us with a list of Bills that runs into 1 1/2 quarto pages. I shall not bother to read them out now, but there are a number of Bills covering very important matters, including bounty and subsidy legislation, crimes legislation and legislation covering States grants for schools, nursing homes assistance amendments Bills and industrial relations matters. All of these matters are of great importance, and we have been endeavouring to assist the Government to deal with legislation with some haste by sitting and considering so-called non-controversial Bills during Thursday lunchtime. If the Government wants cooperation from the coalition parties, it had better make sure that it acts in a proper manner and does not pull this sort of thing on the Liberal and National Party Opposition by forcing us to have a debate about this matter, which, as I have said already, is of such importance that quite clearly it could be left to the end of the next session, not this session of the Parliament, by which time the Australian Agricultural Council will probably have reported on these matters. If some inquiry had to take place after that date, the Senate committee could clearly continue with that inquiry with the benefit of the information it would have as a result of the report of the Australian Agricultural Council. Senator Powell —Mr President-- The PRESIDENT —Senator Powell, this is a procedural motion and you have no right of reply, so if you want to speak you will need leave. I now call Senator Robert Ray. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.32) —I have listened with interest to what Senator Chaney and Senator Lewis have said today about this matter. May I say first of all that some of the imputations as to motive on this side, as usual, are wrong. When we are confronted with a situation of a conspiracy or a muck-up, we should take a muck-up every time. Part of the problem this morning arose-and those on our side who run Government Business in the chamber must take responsibility for a breakdown in communications-because I, as the Minister at the table, was not informed that there would be a move to suspend Standing Orders. When that move occurred I sought advice on what agreements may have been reached on this subject earlier this morning, and there was apparently a fair degree of confusion about that, which I might say has still not been sorted out. It is something that I undertake to sort out, because I do not like being put into a position of not knowing whether there have been agreements. At the moment it is like that old film Stagecoach. I am getting five different versions as to what the discussions have been, and trying to be the arbiter of all that this morning has not been easy. I take the point made by Senator Lewis and Senator Chaney that now at least the Opposition assures us that it would like to cooperate in getting the Government program through, and it has made concessions. We are very grateful about that, that people would put themselves out to get a little legislation through occasionally in this chamber. I do not think that has always been the case in the past. Nevertheless, I will not be so ungenerous as to refer to that any more. The Opposition has indicated that batting on with this proposal today would impair the Government's program substantially. I see the logic to that argument. That sort of threat does impress me, because in the priorities for this country a lot of the legislation we are talking about is even more important than the proposal from Senator Powell. However, her proposal is on the agenda and, in a slightly better atmosphere, we may be able to negotiate a time for its discussion even in this session, depending on how the program is going. I would have thought that, if commitments were made to the Democrats, not by me but by other Government members, that the matter will come up for discussion, we have been placed in the position of having to have that discussion at some stage. I would not have thought that we were bound to have it this morning. The test of the Opposition's position on this matter, if the Government indicates that it will oppose the motion moved by Senator Powell, is: how many other speakers will it put up this morning? If it is really sincere and is not organising a filibuster, we should be able to dispose of this matter and move to the very important Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill within a few minutes. Senator Lewis —I cut 20 minutes off my speech. Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes; we appreciate that. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.36) —I accept Senator Robert Ray's explanation. My remarks will be very brief; but, as this matter concerns the constituents of the National Party of Australia, I think I should make some comment. Senator Crichton-Browne —Some of the constituents. Senators BOSWELL —Certainly. I take Liberal Senator Crichton-Browne's point on that matter. The Australian Labor Party is certainly going to pay its debts. This committee will be set up for no reason other than as a payback to the Australian Democrats for their supporting the resource rent tax legislation. The committee was originally suggested one day after the resource rent tax legislation went through, the Democrats having changed their vote. I think they changed their vote on that tax to get this committee up and to get a few banks of windmills. But they are playing with fire. The Democrats are going to go out on a witch-hunt concerning organically grown food. They see this committee as a way to promote that. This committee will be set up to investigate all agricultural and veterinary chemicals in Australia. That means that it will examine every brand of sheep dip, every brand of cattle dip, every brand of chemical that goes on pineapples and beans and every brand of chemical that is used for zero or minimal tilling. All those types of chemicals will be investigated. I warn the Senate that fools step in where angels fear to tread. We are going to open up the greatest Pandora's box in the rural industries that we have ever seen. The National Party and the Liberal Party of Australia proposed the establishment of a committee to investigate residue testing and compensation to farmers and graziers who have been severely hit by the chemical residue problem. The Labor Party and the Democrats have now joined together in an unholy alliance in favour of setting up a committee to investigate agricultural and veterinary chemicals in Australia and to report on its findings. I say to them that every rural organisation in Australia is terrified that this could get out of control. I suggest that we go back to the agricultural councils that represent Labor States, National Party States and Liberal States and let them come up with a finding before people on the Government side are forced into a position that could damage seriously the rural industries of this nation. Senator McGauran —And our export income. Senator BOSWELL —And our export income. The Government is being wagged by the tail of this Parliament, and it is falling for it. It is coming into it like a bunch of suckers. I warn the Government that it is playing with fire. It should go back to its agricultural councils and the Ministers and ask them for a little advice. It should not rely on what the mob in front of me is telling it. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(10.40) —I remind the Senate that much of what we have heard so far in this so-called debate is not really to the point. The motion currently before us is that a General Business notice of motion be called on forthwith and have precedence over all other business until determined. That is but the first step in a series of steps, the next one of which will lead to a debate regarding the establishment of a select committee on agricultural and veterinary chemicals in Australia. The Senate is not at this stage asked to make a decision other than in relation to the order of business for today. Even at the next step it will not be asked to make a decision, other than in relation to the formation of a committee. That committee will presumably inquire, guided by certain terms of reference, and its report will come back to the Senate. It will be at that stage, some months hence, that a substantive decision will be made in relation to those matters that Senator Lewis and Senator Chaney mentioned earlier this morning. It seems to me that all three honourable senators who have spoken on the Opposition side are running absolutely terrified that a mechanism such as this might bring forward information which would lead to different processes of management of the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. The Democrats are talking about something much broader than just the beef industry. Members of the Opposition do not want such a wide-ranging inquiry even to get off the ground. They do not want the information to be discovered; they do not want to have to face the consequences or decisions which may flow from that information. Let me mention a few of those areas in which the inquiry, by going broader than just the beef industry, is likely to come up with new and better solutions. This will be the case even for those industries about which Senator Boswell has expressed concern-those export oriented industries such as the beef industry. I notice that Mr Dennis Toohey, a Regional Director of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, is saying that biological control has become a significant replacement for chemicals in some sectors of agriculture. Surely if we can go down the path of methods of control which do not involve the use of persistent toxic chemicals with long-lasting effects-mutagenic and carcinogenic effects, in many instances-that is the way we should be going. Not only would it benefit health in Australia, not only could it benefit us in terms of those products which are consumed in this country, but it would also be extremely beneficial for our export industries because it would guarantee long into the future the broad saleablility of those exports on the world market. We have seen recently the example of one of those chemicals, heptachlor, in use in Western Australia for the control of the Argentine ant. Heptachlor is not in itself a chemical which is used directly in the beef industry but it has led to significant contamination of substantial areas in Western Australia. This control program has been going on since 1953 and has led to significant environmental damage and significant health effects in Australia, and has, in fact, impacted quite seriously on parts of the export industry. In that respect we are now finding that there are alternative solutions which do not involve the use of these very persistent, very long-lasting chemicals, and these solutions are precisely the sorts of things that may be discovered by this inquiry and which may lead to better alternatives which would be of benefit all round. Previously in this chamber I have dealt with the unsatisfactory nature of the registration and regulation of chemicals in Australia. Senator Peter Baume —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The motion before the Senate is a procedural one. I have listened to Senator Coulter but he has now moved right on to debate the substantive matter which Senator Powell wants to bring up. I ask that he be requested to confine himself to the procedural matter which the Senate is considering. The PRESIDENT —I remind Senator Coulter that we are debating a motion to rearrange the Senate's order of business. There is a real danger of going into the substantive part of the argument, and I ask him not to do that. Senator COULTER —I take that point and indicate that I would not have done that. I would have confined my remarks if the three Opposition senators who spoke to this motion had not debated those areas. Senator Panizza —Are you questioning the ruling of the Chair? Senator COULTER —I am not questioning your ruling, Mr President; I am explaining why I went down that path, from which I will now desist. I return to the point that I made earlier, and I thank Senator Peter Baume for making the point that we are debating the first step of this process, and it is right that we do not debate the other matters which will consequentially flow from it. We should dispense with this matter very quickly. Question put: That the motion (Senator Powell's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Alston, R. K. R. Hill, R. M.Aulich, T. G. Knowles, S. C. (Teller)Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter McGauran, J. J.Beahan, M. E. MacGibbon, D. J.Bishop, B. K. McMullan, R. F.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R.Black, J. R. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Morris, J. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M.Burns, B. R. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Ray, RobertChilds, B. K. Reid, M. E.Coates, J. Reynolds, M.Collins, R. L. Schacht, C. C.Colston, M. A. Sibraa, K. W.Cook, P. F. S. Stone, J. O.Cooney, B. C. Tambling, G. E. J.Crowley, R. A. Tate, M. C.Devereux, J. R. Vanstone, A. E.Devlin, A. R. Walsh, P. A.Durack, P. D. Walters, M. S.Gietzelt, A. T. Watson, J. O. W.Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O.Hamer, D. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Senator Cooney) agreed to: That the time for presentation of the Report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the feasibility of and need for a national identification system be extended to 1 December 1988. The PRESIDENT —I have received the following message from the House of Representatives relating to a matter referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure: Message No. 160 Mr President, The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day: (1) That all aspects of the Australian Capital Territory leasehold system be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure for inquiry and report. (2) That the committee when inquiring into this matter: (a) confer with a similar committee of the Senate; and (b) have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory appointed during previous Parliaments and the paper entitled The Canberra Leasehold System prepared by Professor Max Neutze for the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory appointed in the 34th Parliament. (3) That this House concurs in paragraph (2) of the resolution transmitted in message No. 131 of the Senate relating to the powers and proceedings of the Standing Committees on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure of the Senate and House of Representatives when sitting as a joint committee. (4) That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. The House of Representatives requests the concurrence of the Senate in subparagraph (2) (b) of this resolution. JOAN CHILD Speaker House of Representatives Canberra, 18 April 1988 Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: That the message be considered forthwith. Motion by (Senator Robert Ray) proposed: (1) That the Senate concurs in paragraph 2 (b) of the Resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 160 of the House of Representatives. (2) That the provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (3) That the foregoing Resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by Message. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.54) —I seek some guidance from the Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Robert Ray) as to whether this matter was the subject of discussion at a Whips meeting held this morning? Senator Robert Ray —At this time I am informed that it was. Senator CHANEY —And it was agreed that the matter go through now? I am sorry to need that assurance, but I had not seen the pink prior to coming in here because I was otherwise engaged. Therefore, I am not fully briefed. However, the Opposition makes no objection. Senator Robert Ray —On our track record this morning, there is an even money chance that we had agreement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(10.56) —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- In the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88, appropriations totalling $0.3m-additional to the those made in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1987-88-are sought for the recurrent and capital purposes of the parliamentary departments. The increase sought is to cover salaries of paid inoperative staff, separation and retirement payments and national wage case and second tier salary increases. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) proposed: That the Bill be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(10.58) —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- In Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88, appropriations totalling $153.4m-additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1987-88-are sought for capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory, advances and loans and for other services. The proposed appropriations are needed to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures for which provision was not made in that Act. The additional appropriations are sought to meet certain cost and price increases which have occurred since the Budget and other requirements which the Government has considered it appropriate to meet this financial year. Areas where significant increases are sought over amounts provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 are as follows: $81.1m is included under the Department of Primary Industries and Energy to validate of crude oil excise allowed in respect of production from the Tuna oil field in 1982-83. This payment is required to overcome a technical error since discovered in the determination under which the original rebate was allowed and will be offset by an equivalent receipt of excise. $11.3m is included under the Department of Community Services and Health primarily to cover a backdated parameter change to the 1986-87 Medicare compensation grants to the States. $10m is sought for the Department of Veterans' Affairs as it has been decided to continue to accept loan applications from defence service homes clients and due to an increase in new building construction. An amount of $4m was appropriated in the Budget, based on an assumption that the Defence Services Homes Corporation would not accept loan applications after 15 September 1987. $10m is included under the Department of Primary Industries and Energy for payment to New South Wales as part of a jointly funded $40m package to improve the efficiency of coal rail freight transport. In addition the provision in this Bill for plant and equipment for the Australian Taxation Office reflects the net effect of savings and the interim funding of computer facilities related to development work associated with the proposal, announced by the Prime Minister on 29 September 1987, to examine the use of the existing tax file numbering system as a means of countering tax evasion. Plant and equipment spending on the computer facilities will be $3.859m in 1987-88. A further payment of $3.2m is scheduled to be made in 1988-89. The computer facilities will allow development work to continue and will also provide, when development is complete, computer capacity for the Taxation Office to administer any one of a number of alternative arrangements involving tax file numbers. The Government has yet to consider the alternatives and no decision on the matter has been made. Additional running costs of $2.732m have also been provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) to enable the development work to continue. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray)-by leave-agreed to: That Government Business, Order of the Day No. 42, Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill (No. 3) 1987, be discharged from the Notice Paper. Consideration resumed from 18 February 1988. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(11.00) —I believe that technically I have to move that the Bill be now read a second time, in order to take up the consequences of the double dissolution. I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(11.01) —The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 1987 seeks to make some finetuning amendments to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The second reading speech of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), which has been tabled previously, suggests that the Act, which came into operation on 1 October 1980, codified and modernised the ancient prerogative writ remedies under which the lawfulness of government decision-making could be challenged. That is certainly true, and it is fair to say that at that time there was a very substantial measure of agreement that there was a need for an overhaul of the existing structures. Certainly, there were very many complexities and uncertainties and, I think, in many ways the administrative law regime that we now have streamlines the procedures. This Bill seeks to limit in several fairly important ways the rights of persons seeking judicial review. It is certainly the view of the Opposition that it is yet another attempt to undermine and emasculate the administrative law regime that has been in place for quite some years now. The great reforms of the 1970s led to the establishment of not only the Administrative Appeals Tribunal but also the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Freedom of Information Act and, certainly, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. They were all designed to ensure that ordinary citizens would not be overborne by government decision-making and that they would be entitled to reasons for decisions and entitled to review on points of law the decisions made by otherwise unimpeachable public servants. The reality is that the Government has seized on a frustration engendered by one particular instance and has then attempted to introduce some so-called remedies and efficiencies into the system. But the end result is that the cure is much worse than the complaint. The present law allows people to go to the Federal Court of Australia to review a range of decisions made by administrative tribunals. It is sometimes the case that people seek to make interlocutory applications to contest rulings on technical or procedural and jurisdictional matters in the course of the hearing. The one case that is endlessly cited as an example of an abuse of process is the application for a third television licence in the State of Western Australia, where some 16 separate applications were made to the Federal Court over a period of 12 to 18 months. It was said that that thereby caused a delay in the granting of the licence of about some 12 months. However, the reality is that, of those applications, some six were successful. There was no attempt on the part of the respondent to proceed in any way that was improper, nor indeed was it considered by the court that any of those applications constituted an abuse of process or that they were in any way frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Indeed, not all the applications to the Court were made pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. The result of those applications was to streamline in many ways the administrative process of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and to correct some weaknesses and deficiencies in its procedures. It is quite clear that that was a one-off situation, where all the parties to the application regarded the cost as being of no concern. It is not often that one gets litigation where litigants on both sides can afford to take that approach. The matter has now been resolved. The circumstances are unlikely to recur and, in any event-this perhaps is a very important consideration-none of the current arrangements, nor indeed the proposed arrangements, would deprive applicants of their rights to go to the High Court of Australia, under its original jurisdiction, or to the Federal Court, under the Judiciary Act, in order to review these decisions. What the Government is really seeking to do is to use that one example, which I would suggest is a flawed instance, to justify very serious limitations being placed on the rights of individuals to make applications during the currency of a hearing. It is not uncommon that people feel the need to get clarification of preliminary rulings. One would have thought that it is a proper procedure that should be applied in this jurisdiction. If the Government were really concerned that there were certain areas where there should not be applications of any sort during the currency of a hearing it could have provided that there should be no appeals on broadcasting, trade practices, migration or taxation matters and it could similarly have put a limitation on applications during the currency of those hearings. But it has not sought to do that. It has introduced a very messy and uncertain form of reverse onus so that a person must now prove that there are not alternative statutory remedies available from tribunals or authorities or that the interests of justice require the granting of the application. That does not rule out common law remedies or other applications. As I have already indicated, the Bill introduces a whole new set of complexities and uncertainties. It requires the establishment by the applicant of that effective reverse onus of proof. It will therefore penalise small and impecunious litigants who will be intimidated on the question of costs because they will be liable for costs unless they win the ultimate hearing, not just win on the preliminary point, because they will be bearing their own costs. It is our strong view that if the Government had been seriously concerned about the question of delay being used as a tactic it could have confined its concerns to that area and put an onus of proof on a respondent to demonstrate that the application was made solely or primarily for the purposes of delay. But it has not done that; it has introduced this new regime which in many ways will simply make matters much more complicated. The onus being on the applicant regardless of the respondent's views removes an element of flexibility because it means that the respondent cannot make a sensible judgment about whether there is merit in the application or whether it is designed simply for tactical purposes. It would require the applicant to rebut that suggestion; so this would have to be faced up to in every instance. Of course, in many instances that could well be a very unnecessary and burdensome obligation. One could envisage that even in those Broadcasting Tribunal hearings manifest deficiencies were apparent to both sides but that the Tribunal was reluctant to make a ruling and was prepared to concede jurisdiction to the Federal Court. Even in an instance such as that, this legislation would require that the applicant before the court would face this very difficult burden of proof. It is the view of the Opposition that this legislation does not achieve any useful purpose. It also is intended to avoid overlapping remedies and, again, to require an applicant to demonstrate that there are not alternative remedies available beyond review under the Act. That again is a difficult and uncertain area. It will not reduce any abusive use of the Act. It is likely to discriminate against those who can least afford to take their chances in a court of law. It certainly would not have deterred any of the applications to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal hearings. That simply would have been grist to the mill for them and they would have had no problems in retaining highly qualified and expensive senior counsel and, in effect, upping the ante. I would have thought that would be the last thing the Government would have contemplated occurring in that instance. It may be that it was intended that there should be a discouragement of resort to the Federal Court in the first instance, but that assumes that administrative remedies are cheaper than Federal Court hearings and I would question that assumption. The cost of traversing this additional step would certainly fall on applicants irrespective of the merits and that is a very serious vice. Finally, the omnibus requirement that an applicant demonstrate that it is in the interest of justice that he be allowed to proceed with the application for interlocutory review is yet another minefield for the unwary. It certainly makes it very difficult to predict the outcome and the best advice that would probably be offered in that situation by responsible legal advisers is that one simply cannot tell: it depends a bit on the judge; it is a matter of discretion; there is always a risk involved and the applicant will be up for the costs in any event. In such a situation one can well understand that an applicant will be deterred. It is another instance of the onus being on the wrong foot. We say that this legislation is unnecessary. The introduction of a de facto leave requirement will simply aggravate the situation. It will allow departments and agencies to run up costs in arid jurisdiction challenges. It will introduce uncertainty and complexities. It will not deter corporations; it may well deter ordinary citizens. The operation of the current administrative law structure under this Act is working satisfactorily. There was an earlier suggestion that perhaps in the area of committal proceedings there could be some attempts at delay but the onus, if there must be one, should be very much on the Government to demonstrate that there was a series of inequities and injustices rather than simply to point to one isolated and exceptional piece of commercial litigation in which the parties were well able to look after themselves, in which all sides understood the rules of the game and in which the ultimate outcome may well have been to the benefit of future litigants because it clarified a number of the procedural complexities and difficulties that might otherwise have needed to be resolved by other less pecunious applicants. For those reasons the Opposition opposes the legislation. In doing that we very much support the report of the Senate Select Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. We do not resile from the fact that prior to the Committee's investigation some of these difficulties were not apparent. It is a good example of the usefulness of the Senate inquiry system. We had a number of very helpful submissions which demonstrated a number of the matters that I have touched on today. Having had mature consideration of the implications of the Bill, it is our view that it must be rejected. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.14) —The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 1987 has had a fairly long history. As I remember it, the Bill was sent to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs after a second reading debate some time in May last year. The Committee reported in October with a recommendation that the reverse onus provisions contained in clause 2 not be enacted. Senator Stone dissented from the report. He disagreed with the Committee and thought that the Bill should be allowed to go forward as it stood. At the time of the Bill going to the Committee I expressed on behalf of the Australian Democrats our belief that this Bill should be defeated. However, we were unable to ascertain the position of the Opposition parties and hence believed that a committee inquiry was better than actually risking the Bill being passed. We are quite pleased that, as a result of further consideration, the Opposition-I presume that it is all Opposition parties; I am not quite sure whether it includes the National Party yet, but we will hear later in the debate, I suppose-- Senator Alston —It does. Senator MACKLIN —That is interesting, because it differs from the dissenting report Senator Stone made to the-- Senator Alston —I don't purport to speak on behalf of his Party. Senator MACKLIN —No, but it is different from his former position. He has changed his mind, which is good to see. When new facts are brought forward one would hope that all honourable senators would be willing to change their minds. Senator Alston —He hasn't changed his mind. Senator MACKLIN —He stated in his dissenting report: In short, therefore, I disagree with the recommendation of the Committee contained in paragraph 5.8 of the Report, and would allow the Bill to go forward as it stands. That seems to suggest, if he is now voting against it, that there has been a change. However, I defer to the lawyers on this matter. The positions seem to me to be different. Senator Tate —It's a change of vote, not a change of mind. Senator MACKLIN —We will listen with bated breath later in the debate to Senator Stone's definitive position. Nevertheless, it is now clear that there is a majority-hence, I do not intend to speak at great length-to defeat this Bill. I reiterate the points I made last year. The Government has not moved in any way-certainly not by way of suggested amendments circulated in this place-to meet the propositions we raised last time. Our objections, therefore, still stand. It is obvious that this Bill goes significantly further than the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council in its review of this Act. One of the Review Council's conclusions was that it was neither desirable nor appropriate to introduce a requirement of leave in the Act. The Bill, as currently drafted, threatens to introduce such a de facto requirement of leave. We believe that it is easily demonstrable that the Bill's provisions will operate in practice to add to the expense of proceedings. I quote from a submission by the Administrative Law Committee of the Law Institute of Victoria which I think puts this very clearly. It quotes from the second reading speech made by the then Attorney-General in 1977 on the introduction of the parent Act: The present law relating to the review by the courts of administrative decisions is in a most unsatisfactory state . . . The law in this area is clearly in need of reform-indeed, it could be said to be mediaeval-and simplification to be put into statutory form. What the present Bill- that is, the parent Act which this Bill seeks to amend- seeks to do is to establish a single simple form of proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia for judicial review of Commonwealth administrative actions as an alternative to the present cumbersome and technical procedures for review by way of prerogative writ, or the present actions for a declaration or injunction. That is the end of the quotation from the original second reading speech made in 1977. The submission goes on: The Committee strenuously opposes the proposed amendments as a step back towards the `cumbersome' and `mediaeval' procedures which the Act was designed to remedy. The alternative remedies of prerogative writ and action for declaration are entrenched- as Senator Alston has already said- in the Constitution. It is not within the Parliament's power to affect the citizen's rights with regard to those remedies. Therefore, the proposed amendments may cause actions, which can presently be taken under the Act, to be brought under the Constitution. Such relief, being `cumbersome and technical', is more time consuming and involves greater expense. Accordingly, the Bill is likely to be counterproductive. It will result in an increase in costs and delays . . . That point has been made in a number of other submissions. The Government-certainly last time-did not seek to meet the situation that people will still wish to press their rights and, in doing so, will take avenues available to them. If we cut off this avenue, another avenue is available. It is certainly more costly and more cumbersome and is possibly available only to the rich and powerful in this society. The Labor Party seems to be interested in looking after the rich and powerful, which is possibly one of the reasons this Bill is before us. Many other people in the community, the ordinary citizens who do not have access to vast amounts of wealth, are the ones who are normally affected by administrative decisions. The statistics show that currently the overwhelming majority of litigants seeking to challenge the legality of the Commonwealth's administrative decisions use the Act in preference to the writ or the other methods available to them. If that is the case, and the overwhelming majority of litigants use the Act, one must ask why we are seeking to implement a method which could have the result of moving people into the other area, which we were seeking to avoid by passage of the Act in the first place. Undoubtedly, the essence of this Bill is to erect additional procedural hurdles. To put those hurdles in the way of people seeking judicial review of some action, I would have thought, is the antithesis of the Act. A number of other items have been raised time and again. The Government has not sought in any way to deal with them. For example, what type of guidance is to be offered with regard to concepts such as the interests of justice and interference with the due and orderly conduct of proceedings, et cetera? Certainly, many submissions to the Committee made it clear that it is preferable to identify various circumstances in which courts may traditionally refuse relief in the exercise of residual discretion. It is obvious that the measures in this Bill are designed to discourage the disruption of administrative proceedings. That, after all, is what the Minister said in his second reading speech. However, in the attempt to move against so-called disruptions of administrative proceedings, we are faced with the question of whether rights which should be available to citizens to undertake actions which are not prohibitively expensive are also being taken away. These measures go beyond the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council, without any argument being raised as to why. It is important that, having established the Administrative Review Council, we take some cognisance of it. The Government is perfectly entitled either to take or reject any recommendations from such a council. But in doing so it should try to meet the Council's propositions and say why it wishes to go beyond them, as in this case. I am not criticising the Government for having gone beyond the recommendations of the Council. It is just that a detailed reason as to why it has gone beyond the recommendations of the Council has not been given. We may hear it later in this debate. The Democrats' feeling is that the Bill creates an unreasonable and inappropriate balance in the respective positions of private individuals-ordinary citizens-and the Government and that, by raising these additional procedural barriers, the Government is disadvantaging significantly the individual citizen, whereas the intended compensation on the other side, as, I think, Senator Alston has already said, leans on a small number of propositions. I suppose that bad examples always end up making bad law. That is probably the situation here. Undoubtedly, there will be occasions when, on the face of it, there will seem to be attempts to disrupt administrative procedures. But under those circumstances one will have to ask whether those administrative procedures are such as to raise the ire of a substantial number of citizens. If they are, it may very well be that the administrative decisions ought to be changed, rather than the law governing the rights of citizens to object to them. Why is it that every time we have a substantial body of public opinion concerned about some type of administrative action, public opinion must be wrong and administrative action right? Politicians have to take note of public opinion. I think it would be worth while on occasions for the bureaucracy also to listen to the public. If a substantial number of people seek to intervene, as is the case in the example that the Government has trotted out with regard to broadcasting, I believe that some attention ought to be paid to that. Attention has been paid to it; changes have and are being made; some of which, of course, my Party is totally opposed to. Nevertheless, I believe that we should not jump to the conclusion that the people who are wrong are members of the public, the people who are right are the bureaucrats, and that what we have to do is actually to put members of the public in their place. I think that that is what this Bill attempts to do. It is unacceptable. I hope that if the Government wishes to proceed down this track after the defeat of this Bill it will listen much more carefully to the Review Council's recommendations and conform more closely to those types of recommendations, rather than seek to take away the legitimate rights of citizens to seek review of administrative action. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.26) —I wish briefly to add my support to the position of the Opposition in this matter-that is, to oppose the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill. It is yet another demonstration of the effective role that the committee system of the Senate can play. I was pleased to be part of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which examined in depth the provisions contained in this amendment Bill. I came to the conclusion that the arguments that have been put forward by the Government to justify the amendments are not valid; in fact, the amendments would relieve the citizen of certain of the citizen's discretions in applying for administrative review and that is not in the best interests of the community at large. I guess there is a lesson for us in that whenever the Government starts a second reading speech to a Bill with words to the effect that `this Bill simply applies some finetuning' we should be put on guard. This instance is such an occasion. The Bill, at first glance, can appear to be somewhat innocuous and to have certain merit. When it is suggested to us that there is an abuse by those who are aggrieved in seeking to take advantage of the various options at the same time, one has an immediate sentiment in support of the Bill. But on careful analysis that argument is found not to be so. I am pleased to stand here as someone who is proud of the contribution that the coalition made when in government to develop what I think is the most comprehensive and effective administrative review mechanism that exists anywhere in the English-speaking world. It is a mechanism that has a number of arms to it, Madam Acting Deputy President, as you would know. There is the opportunity for someone to look for review from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was set up in 1975 and is empowered to review decisions on their merits and to substitute its decisions for those of the original decision-makers. That is what we would regard as the most simple and hopefully the least cost-incurring method of seeking review. There is the mechanism set up by legislation for a person to have the opportunity to go to the Ombudsman and allow him to investigate on behalf of an individual what the individual regards as administrative abuse. Alternatively, in the more complicated circumstances, there is the opportunity under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act to seek judicial review. As I said, it is my opinion and the opinion of the Opposition that this group of Acts and tribunals gives citizens in this country the best opportunity possible to question and seek review of the very many administrative decisions that are taken by government that affect their lives. We need only reflect very briefly upon the enormous range of matters that affect us in our daily lives upon which governments make administrative decisions. One can think of matters that occur every day in the migration field, in taxation, Customs, social security, prosecution decisions, extradition proceedings, and so on. There is a myriad of occasions in which governments affect the lives of the citizen. It has certainly not been easy in the past for the citizen to question and to seek review of those administrative decisions when the citizen has regarded them as not being well-founded. The machinery that has been set up-somewhat complex but nevertheless comprehensive-gives the citizen that opportunity. The Government is seeking, by this Bill, to introduce a hurdle to applicants who are seeking such review. I draw your attention, Madam Acting Deputy President, to section 10 of the existing Act which provides that the court may, in its discretion, refuse to grant an application for review made under section 5, 6 or 7 of the AD(JR) Act where an applicant has sought review by the court or by another court otherwise than under the Act. In the case of an applicant before the tribunal and seeking an action before another court, the court already has the discretion not to grant the application for review. That is existing law. This Bill seeks to go one step further by providing an onus upon the applicant in circumstances that seem to us to be unwarranted. It will require the court to refuse applications made under section 5, 6 or 7 of the AD(JR) Act where the applicant has an alternative right to seek review unless the interests of justice required that it should not refuse the application. In other words, the onus has been switched to the applicant. The court shall refuse the application unless the applicant can prove certain things. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this change was put to the Senate as being warranted because of certain alleged abuses. When one looks at the report of the Administrative Review Council and the investigation by the Senate Standing Committee, one finds that the suggestions of alleged abuses do not stand examination. The Senate Standing Committee concluded that it had no reason to doubt the Administrative Review Council's conclusion that the allegations about the level of abuse of AD(JR) Act applications is exaggerated. The report of the Committee states: In the Committee's view, there is no evidence to suggest that the AD(JR) Act has attracted `abusive' litigation in a manner which distinguishes it from any other legal process. I say again that under the existing Act the court already has a discretion to refuse an application if it sees abuses occurring. So why introduce a new onus upon the applicant? The Standing Committee went on to say: The Committee is of the view that enactment of the proposed amendments will not decrease the costs of reviewing administrative action. The proposed amendments will not affect the availability of common law procedures (such as prerogative writs) which are, in many cases, more expensive than applications under the AD(JR) Act. The Committee, seeking to be constructive as it always does, nevertheless recognised that there may well be need for some further legislative formulation of the court's discretion and specifically stated that it was prepared to accept that this should occur where applicants possessed adequate alternative remedies. The Committee said that it would support such codification provided, however, that the onus was not switched. That appears as conclusion 5.7 of the Committee's report, which reads: Accordingly, the Committee would have no objection to the enactment of proposed paragraphs 10 (2) (c) and 10 (2) (d) if the onus were to be placed upon the respondent-not upon the applicant. I would have thought that that should have been a sufficient lead for this Government to recognise that if it switched the onus it had the support of the Senate's own Committee which examined the matter and it would, therefore, be likely to gain support for the legislative formulation of the court's discretion of which it was speaking. But this Government has not been prepared to do that. It is seeking to pursue the Bill in the original form despite the advice that has been given to it by the Senate's own Committee. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Opposition will support the Committee, oppose the Bill and ensure that this added hurdle for applicants seeking administrative review is not introduced. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.36) —I rise to speak on the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill, which the Opposition is opposing, because I think I owe the Senate some explanation of my own position with respect to it. The chief reason for the position taken by the Opposition in this matter derives from clauses 10 (2) (c) and 10 (2) (d) of the Bill. Those clauses propose that, where any applicant to the Federal Court of Australia under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act lodges an application for review under that Act, and where provision is made by any law other than the Act-for example, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act-under which the applicant is already entitled to seek a review of that decision otherwise than by a court, the Federal Court shall refuse to grant the application unless it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be granted. In other words, as Senator Hill and Senator Alston have pointed out, the onus of proof under this Act in respect of any such application which argues for the prior intervention of the Federal Court before those other avenues of review have been explored or exhausted would be shifted from the respondent, where it would normally be, to the applicant. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, of which I am a member, reported on this and other aspects of the Bill on 29 October last. With me dissenting, the Committee unanimously recommended-I refer to paragraph 5.8 of the report of the Committee-that this particular provision of the Bill should not be enacted. There is, I think, general agreement that the arguments in this matter are rather finely balanced. Those who may be listening to this debate may be having some difficulty in finding quite where the balance sometimes lies in them. Chapter 4 of the Committee's report, wherein this particular matter is examined, runs to 69 paragraphs. I hope that it will not be thought to be any reflection upon either the Committee or, still less, its extremely competent staff if I say that the argumentation in those paragraphs is not merely long drawn out but exceedingly finely spun in places. Not being myself a lawyer, I expressed my dissent from the Committee's conclusion on this matter in only two very meagre paragraphs. They are at page 47 of the Committee's report, paragraphs J.S.2. and J.S.3. Perhaps I should read them into the record. They are very brief. In that dissent, I stated: in whatever form the proposed amendments to Section 10 of the Act are expressed, if the Federal Court is given power to refuse an application, or is directed conditionally to refuse an application- which is what the Bill is proposing- in cases where the applicant is entitled to seek review by another tribunal, authority or person, the reality is that the court will generally refuse the application unless the applicant persuades it not to do so. I went on to say in the next paragraph: For my part, therefore, I see no significant basis for objection to the amendments to sub-section 10 (2) of the Act- that is of the principal Act- that are included in Clause 2 of the Bill. To object to those amendments seems to me to be straining at gnats while letting through the camels. Nevertheless, as I say, and as I think one or two earlier speakers may have said, the arguments, either way, are rather finely balanced. When this Bill originally passed through the House of Representatives on 26 February last year and again when it passed though that House-the Parliament having meanwhile been dissolved for the general election-in October last year, the Opposition did not oppose the Bill, including not opposing this provision thereof. I suppose that is perhaps the best evidence that can be quoted of the fine balance of argument on this matter, given the Opposition's more recent decision now to propose the Bill's amendment in this particular. My original reasons for taking the other view-that is, for lending my support in the Committee to the view originally taken by the Opposition to support the Bill-were set out in the course of my remarks on 29 October last year when speaking to the tabling of the Committee report by the then Chairman of the Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Senator Bolkus. In passing, I should like to congratulate Senator Barney Cooney on now succeeding to the chairmanship of the Committee following Senator Bolkus's translation-I will not say elevation-to the ministerial ranks of the Government. As I say, my reasons for taking a position in the Committee which was originally in line with the formally considered view, and indeed formerly considered view, of the Opposition but which, because of subsequent formal processes in the shadow Cabinet and the joint party room, is now at variance with the present position of the Opposition are already contained in the Hansard of 29 October last year. I shall not weary the Senate by repeating those reasons now. I simply want to say that in these changed circumstances-and particularly given the fine balance of argumentation in the matter on one side or the other in any case-I shall be adhering to the rules of the game and supporting my Opposition colleagues in any division which there may be on this matter. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.44) —I rise to oppose the second reading of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill to amend the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, an Act which has become popularly known-if `popular' is the right word to use in this context-as the AD(JR) Act. Senator Stone has already observed that people listening to this debate this morning may be somewhat mystified by the technicalities of the subject. I thought I might just say a few words in opening to explain why these matters are very far from technical matters. This Act and associated Acts, and the amendments that are now proposed by the Government, go to the heart of the rights of citizens against the bureaucracy and against Ministers. The package of legislation which is brought into consideration by these amendments is of enormous importance to Australians. The Senate should be taking this matter very seriously, yet I have noticed that the only speakers in this debate are from this side of the chamber. Not one Australian Labor Party senator has risen to support the Bill. I feel a little sorry for the Minister at the table, the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, who no doubt will have that obligation to speak at the conclusion of the debate. It is extraordinary that the Government supporters are not debating the merits of the Government's proposal. I am very pleased by the fact that the Opposition has decided to oppose the whole of this Bill and not just to seek to amend it. I believe this Bill does call for some broad judgment about where Parliament should be going in respect of this process of administrative review. Although I concede that there are some arguments in favour of some amendments to this Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, I do not believe that this Bill is a satisfactory one or that it provides satisfactory amendments. That is why I am opposing it and why the Opposition is opposing it. I return to the importance of this legislation for all Australians. Over the last 20 years or so there has been an ever-growing concern about the accountability of government. I have not found any diminishment of that concern, and I have been in politics over that 20 or more years period. Indeed, I would say that the concern about government-indeed, a cynicism about government-is more widespread today and felt more strongly by Australian citizens than it was 20 years ago. The reason is basically the ever-growing size of government over those 20 years and the perceived inability of the Parliament itself to control the executive government. We do our best in the Senate at Question Time, through Senate committee exercises, in debates and so forth. Indeed, this chamber has got a more effective record of putting some brakes on government, to make it more accountable, to limit it to some extent, than any other parliamentary chamber in Australia. We should not underestimate the achievements in parliamentary control of the Executive, particularly in the Senate. Nevertheless, the vast size of government and the impact of government on the lives of every person at some stage are of continuing worry. Even if it is decided that the size of government can be reduced-and it ought to be significantly reduced, in my view-I fear the end result will still be the existence of a leviathan and a very widespread impact on individuals. This Act deals with the decisions that are made by which individuals are aggrieved. We are not talking here about governments bringing in Budgets generally, or implementing economic policies or matters of that kind; we are talking about the impact of government decisions and the application of government policies and legislation on an individual. Those are decisions which, until recent years, did not provide individuals with an adequate opportunity to challenge them. Individuals can litigate in courts if they are aggrieved by attitudes and decisions of other individuals. When it comes to decisions by a government, until recent years-indeed, until the work of the Fraser Government-there were completely inadequate remedies available to citizens in respect of those decisions of government. The response of the Fraser Government-and my colleague Senator Hill has already mentioned this-was very impressive. I do not want to give a lecture on the general reforms that were introduced by the Fraser Government. However, I must mention them by name. There was the establishment of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in 1976; there was the establishment of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which gave a right of appeal against the large and, over the years, growing numbers of decisions by Ministers, government or bureaucrats; and there was the Freedom of Information Act, which was brought into effect by the Fraser Government in 1982 and which had a long period of passage through this Parliament, perhaps longer than really necessary and certainly longer than I desired. That could have been in place earlier than it was. Nevertheless, it was finally put in place. In particular, there was the Act we are now discussing, the AD(JR) Act. That was brought into effect in 1980, although it had been passed by this Parliament several years earlier. This Act provides a general legal remedy, a judicial remedy, on the ground that decisions are in one way or another, as spelt out in that Act, contrary to law. The role of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is in respect of decisions made on the merits-or maladministration, in the case of the Ombudsman. That is a very valuable right of appeal and it is a growing jurisdiction. This particular Act provides people with a judicial remedy. In other words, under this Act they can allege in the Federal Court that the decision is wrong in law. Prior to that Act being passed there was no adequate general remedy of that kind available to the citizen. So this Act is an enormous advance in expanding the rights of the individual, in the same way as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Freedom of Information Act have been enormous advances in the rights of the individual to get information from government, to really find out what is happening, in the case of freedom of information, and, in the case of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to actually have reversed by that Tribunal decisions made on the merits. The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, which the Government now seeks to amend and whose effect the Government now seeks to reduce, has another important feature, namely, that citizens can demand reasons for decisions by bureaucrats. They were not too keen on giving reasons for decisions until this requirement was put in. They are not too keen on it now. Nevertheless, in this Act there is a legal right to have decisions included. I hope that the Senate, when it votes on this legislation, will be fully aware as to its great importance-its great importance as part of a package of new, expanded and effective rights that were provided to Australian citizens over the years of the Fraser Government. By contrast, the present Government, the Hawke Labor Government, has been endeavouring to whittle away as much as it possibly can the rights of individuals that have been so carefully put together in the package I have referred to. The Fraser Government attempted in that package to allay the growing concerns about the lack of accountability of government. I am sure that people will be even more concerned when they know the attitude of the Hawke Government to these rights and the attitude of Ministers such as Senator Walsh, whose views on this whole subject are set out very clearly in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Senator Walsh, in his role as Minister for Finance, has been doing his level best to reduce the effectiveness of these remedies. He is quoted in the report as being very critical of the process of administrative review. Senator Walsh has also been very critical of the use of the Freedom of Information Act. A number of Government Ministers have been very critical of the use of that Act. The Government's attempts to whittle down the effectiveness of that Act have taken the form of increasing fees. It is now becoming a very expensive procedure to get the information the right to which the freedom of information legislation gives people. This Government has been trying to whittle down access to that information. This certainly underlines the wisdom of the remarks of Senator Evans, the first Attorney-General in the Hawke Government, who said that he realised that, unless he got some decent freedom of information legislation on the books early in the life of the Government, there would be no hope of ever doing it once Ministers settled in and decided that they preferred to keep information to themselves and their bureaucrats rather than making it available to people. That was a very prescient remark by Senator Evans about the attitude of this Government to freedom of information. The Government has totally reversed the attitude that it took to freedom of information when it was in opposition. Those opposite complained in opposition that the freedom of information legislation was not good enough; but, as I said, they are now busily trying to make it as ineffective as they possibly can by the imposition of outlandish fees, general obstruction and claiming exemption as often as they possibly can. The Government has also tried to choke off administrative appeals by imposing a fee of $200 for the review of decisions. The administrative appeals system is supposed to provide a cheap and ready remedy of a semi-judicial but not technical kind-an informal remedy under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government is trying to choke that system off as much as it possibly can. Now in this legislation it is trying to whittle down the rights that have been accorded to people to have adequate judicial review of administrative decisions. I congratulate the Senate Committee on its most important consideration of this legislation. It is very much on the basis of the findings of that Committee, rather than its recommendations, that the Opposition has now decided to oppose this Bill lock, stock and barrel and not simply to try to amend it. We will, no doubt, hear the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) trying to defend this Bill, saying that it will not have the effect that I claim it will have, that it deals with some abuses of the system that allegedly have been discovered and that it should be supported. I would like to quote the findings of the Senate Committee about these matters. The Senate Committee says, on page 45 of its report: The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill will, if enacted, substantially change the nature of the AD (JR) Act-so much so, that the proposed amendments have been described as being contrary to the original purposes of the . . . Act. . . . the Bill will undermine the simple codification of remedies which has characterised the `new' administrative law system. That is a pretty worrying conclusion for the Committee to have come to. The Committee also finds, in paragraph 5.3, that it has no reason to doubt the conclusion of the Administrative Review Council that the allegations about the abuse of the AD (JR) Act are exaggerated. The Committee says: . . . there is no evidence to suggest that the AD (JR) Act has attracted `abusive' litigation in a manner which distinguishes it from any other legal process. I wonder what the Minister will have to say about the so-called abuses, in the light of that finding of the Committee. The Committee says that, in its view, these proposed amendments will not decrease the cost of reviewing administrative action. That was another claim of the Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us, in the light of that finding of the Committee, what the Government's views now are. Despite the fact that the Committee was prepared to acknowledge that there may be some need for reform of the court's discretion under the Act, those findings are totally devastating and totally reject the Government's case for bringing in these amendments. They simply make clear what I have said all along: the Government is simply determined slowly to whittle away the effectiveness of this legislation. The Government does not have the courage to come in here and say, `All those reforms of the administrative law, all the increased rights that were given to Australian citizens by the Fraser Government in its package of legislation, are poppycock. People do not need these rights. We are going to repeal all this legislation'. It knows that these rights are very important to people. It knows that the people would react very unfavourably if it acted along those lines. So it is following the lines that its own former Attorney-General forecast: it will slowly whittle these rights away. That is what this Government is about, and this Bill is just another step in that direction. The Government says, `We are not repealing the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act; we are just trying to amend it to reverse some abuses that have been identified'. I have said that the abuses have not been identified by independent bodies such as the Senate Committee; nor were they identified to any great extent by the Administrative Review Council, which has found that the claims of abuses were all exaggerated. The Administrative Review Council is the Government's own independent body, established to monitor the whole process of administrative review. The Government's own advisory body does not support the case that the Government is now trying to make with these amendments. As I have said, there may be some justified complaints about some decisions that have been made. People may have made applications to the courts under this Act when they should not have done so. Certain judges may have been too lenient in some cases and perhaps should have been tougher with litigants and knocked their applications back. Those sorts of mistakes are made at times in the judicial system. But this is a relatively new Act. It came into operation only in 1980. It has not yet had eight years of operation. The courts themselves, I am quite satisfied, will in due course iron out the problems that have cropped up from time to time, although not to any great extent. There are very clear discretionary powers under the Act by which the judges can limit and deal with frivolous, vexatious or unjustified use of the Act. They are already there. Maybe these provisions have not always been properly interpreted or used by judges, but for the Parliament now to be coming in in this heavy-handed way with these amendments proposed here, which will put the burden of proof on an applicant to show that the interests of justice require the court to deal with his or her case, is totally wrong and it will, as the Senate Committee has found, make substantial changes to the whole system. This system is of enormous benefit to Australian citizens. It should not be whittled down in this way and this Parliament should not now be giving signals to the courts that it is dissatisfied with the way the system is working. By and large the system, for a new system, is working particularly well. It perhaps needs a little more time to settle down and ultimately after proper and full consideration some changes may need to be made. That is common. But at this stage this is certainly not the way to be doing it. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(12.06) —in reply-I support the motion for the second reading of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill, introduced by the Government in order to undertake some small reform of the administrative review structure which, as Senator Durack has quite rightly pointed out, has operated and been built up in Australia over the last several years. It is a cause for great pride, and it is admired throughout the world as a very systematic and adequate attempt by our democracy to deal with the impact of the many decisions made by government which affect citizens in so many areas of their lives. But to portray this particular proposal, as Senator Durack and some other members of the Opposition have done, as some assault on that system that has been built up over the last decade or so is to overstate the case completely. Senator Durack says that the Government is sending some sort of signal to the judges that it is dissatisfied with what they are doing, but let me remind Senator Durack that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs quotes on page 37 of its report a letter from the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, dated 5 August 1987-no doubt he is speaking on behalf of the judges of the Federal Court-saying: . . . the amendments proposed to be made by the Bill would be likely to be of assistance in weeding out, early, matters which should not have been . . . [taken] to the Federal Court. So really the Government, conscious of this particular problem facing the Federal Court, it being confronted with applications which are made, in terms of the Chief Justice, too early, has tried to provide some sort of assistance not by ensuring that a person, an Australian citizen, is deprived of the right to go to the Federal Court to seek to ensure that the action taken by government and having an impact on his or her life is indeed in accordance with law, but merely by deferring that approach to the Federal Court until some other remedies, some other administrative law procedures, are fully used and exhausted. So it cannot be emphasised too much that all we are trying to do is simply to ensure that this whole package is seen by citizens and their legal advisers as a package with a certain sequence which it is appropriate to use. No particular remedy is being denied to anyone by this proposal; it is merely being said that in the ordinary case a person ought to exhaust his or her remedies before, say, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or some other tribunal before going to the Federal Court on a matter of law, a matter of jurisdiction or whatever. Of course it also needs to be emphasised that the Federal Court may, despite the fact that those other remedies have not been exhausted, allow the applicant to have his or her day before the Federal Court. We are not imposing an absolute rule. If the Federal Court thinks that the interests of justice require that the matter be dealt with immediately, that can be done. All we are saying is that the applicant ought to be made to show to the Court that the interests of justice do so require. So I think we need to get things in perspective, and to reiterate what I think was a reasonable point made by the Opposition-namely, that we have a very extensive package of ways by which a citizen is protected against being subjected to administrative decisions which are either unmeritorious in regard to the actual decision making on the substance of the case or are made without due regard to the legal parameters which ought to be observed-it is a package, a system, and it ought to be seen as such. It is with the view that it is an overall package that this proposal has been put before the chamber. I think Senator Macklin in the course of the debate asked me to deal with why the Bill goes somewhat further than the changes recommended by the Administrative Review Council. As I recall, the Administrative Review Council recommendation was that the Court ought to have the discretion to refuse an application in certain specified circumstances, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so. We take a slightly stronger view, that if there is an alternative to court action it should be taken. But, as I say, we really do not make it an absolute rule, and if the interests of justice require that the matter be dealt with by the FederalCourt-- Senator Durack —It is a wonder the matter does not have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is your next step. Senator TATE —The honourable senator knows that it is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Senator Durack —I am saying it is a wonder you have not done that. Senator TATE —We have not because we are not trying to destabilise the system in the way that Senator Durack wishes to suggest. But we do believe that, having established a system of administrative review which does provide a comprehensive review of administrative action, recourse to the processes of judicial review could be deferred in certain situations. The fact is that refusal by the Federal Court under this proposal can occur only where there is an alternative avenue of appeal. That has to be emphasised. As I say, there is no absolute exclusion of the right to have a matter dealt with by the Federal Court. The Federal Court itself sees merit in this proposal and, as Senator Stone pointed out, so did the Opposition when its spokesman, Mr Spender, supported the Bill some time ago in the House of Representatives. I do not deny that a Senate committee can, in its more leisurely procedures, perhaps come to another conclusion but it cannot be said, particularly in light of Senator Stone's dissent from the Senate Committee's report, that there is really anything untoward in the Government pressing its Bill in the chamber this afternoon. I wish to emphasise, finally, that it is not the intention of this legislation to deprive litigants of their rights but, as the Government said in originally responding to the Committee's report, to strike an appropriate balance between the need to ensure efficient and economic use of administrative review processes and the rights of citizens to have access to the judicial review of administrative action where in the opinion of the Court the interests of justice so require. That is what we have attempted to do. We have struck the balance in a particular way which has not found favour with the Senate Committee and it has not found favour, apparently now, with the coalition parties and the Australian Democrats. In that situation the Government really wants a hasty dispatch of this matter, so I think at this stage the best thing to do is to have the question put. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Aulich, T. G. Devlin, A. R.Beahan, M. E. Gietzelt, A. T.Black, J. R. Giles, P. J.Bolkus, N. McMullan, R. F.Burns, B. R. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Childs, B. K. Morris, J. J.Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollins, R. L. Reynolds, M.Colston, M. A. Schacht, C. C.Cook, P. F. S. Sibraa, K. W.Cooney, B. C. Tate, M. C.Crowley, R. A. Walsh, P. A.Devereux, J. R. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael McLean, P. A.Bishop, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chaney, F. M. Powell, J. F.Chapman, H. G. P. Puplick, C. J. G.Coulter, J. R. Reid, M. E.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sanders, N. K.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Haines, J. Tambling, G. E. J.Hill, R. M. Teague, B. C.Jenkins, J. A. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Wood, W. R. Button, J. N. Archer, B. R.Evans, Gareth Baume, PeterForeman, D. J. Hamer, D. J.Jones, G. N. Parer, W. R.McKiernan, J. P. Sheil, G.Richardson, G. F. Short, J. R. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 15 April, on motion by Senator Reynolds: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.23) —The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1988 provides that Ministers of State should receive the same increases in remuneration as members of parliament as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal in its most recent determination. The Bill is not unusual in that the Australian Constitution does not permit ministerial salaries to be dealt with in the same way as the salaries of members of parliament but requires funds to be specifically determined by a legislative Act of this Parliament, and that is why the Bill is before us today. It follows the recommendations made with respect to members generally for a 3.8 per cent increase to take effect from 1 July 1987 as a first step towards resolution of the agreed anomaly which the Tribunal found has existed since 1984. In that sense the legislation is uncontentious except to the extent that members of the public might think that members of parliament and Ministers alike should not receive any money, let alone an increase. However, there is an additional element. The Government, in its recent ministerial changes, increased the maximum number of Ministers from 27 to 30. Therefore, part of the funds being appropriated is affected by that increase in the size of the Ministry as determined by the Government. The Opposition did not support the increase in the size of the Ministry, and consistent with our view that there is already an excessively burdensome cost of government in this country we have argued in favour of smaller ministries. In one of the rare divisions between the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia the Liberal Party argued against an increase in the size of Parliament on the basis that the whole structure of government was extremely expensive. We were additionally concerned that the increase in the ordinary representation of senators for each State from 10 to 12 made it very unlikely that either of the major parties would hold a majority in the Senate except under quite extraordinary political circumstances. Of course, that is totally incidental to this legislation. The concerns of the Opposition with the enlarged Ministry related not merely to the added cost of salaries, which are dealt with here and are not large in terms of the total outlays of the Government-I think the additional appropriations amount to something like $65,000-but also to the additional costs that would flow through to the new Parliament House as a result of the need to revise accommodation. I think some $1.5m in additional cost was incurred in making changes to accommodate the new Ministers. In what I think will be a very brief debate on a Bill which in its essence is not particularly contentious, I just remind the Senate of our objection to seeing the size of the Ministry increase substantially just to meet the problems that the Government has with respect to keeping its factions in good order. We have seen some rather extraordinary changes being made. I am sure you, Mr Acting Deputy President, would recall the events that I want to remind the Senate of. Elections in the Caucus had to be reconsidered because it was thought that the right balance between factions and between men and women had not been achieved. There was a lot of jockeying around: Senator Bolkus was in the Ministry and then out of it, and Senator Reynolds was brought in as one of the necessary changes to ensure that the Labor Party had that vital requirement of four ministries being held by women. It is very interesting to look back over those few months and remember what was said by the Labor Party and by Mr Hawke about how essential it was to have four women in the Ministry, and to see we are now back to three again. With the departure of Senator Ryan, for some reason the urgent necessity to have that additional woman seems to have evaporated. Of course, Senator Tate was not in the Ministry and then suddenly was there. I remind the Senate of these matters not to be unpleasant in any sense but simply to indicate that there is a great deal of cynicism on this side of the chamber about the reasons why the increase in the size of the Ministry was effected by the Government. We believe that the way in which these new ministries was handled is a pretty clear indication that it had a lot more to do with the internal smooth running of the Labor Party than it had to do with the smooth running of Australia. Senator Collins —That translates into better government. Senator CHANEY —I hear an interjection from Senator Collins that this translates into better government, and I suppose there is some truth in that: keeping the factions quiet may well be an important element of ensuring good government. All I can say is that I very much doubt that there is electoral support for increasing the costs and burdens of government for that reason. In that context, I simply remind the Senate that that is one of the reasons why this Government is taking successive political blows from the electorate-and there have been too many of them now for the Government to feel that it is just a matter of bad luck on a particular day. That is the response that the Government has had: again it lost ground in the most recent by-election in Queensland; it lost ground severely in two by-elections in South Australia; and Labor lost government in New South Wales. Senator Robert Ray —One point one preferred in Queensland. Senator CHANEY —Senator Ray conveniently picks up the independent as being part of the Labor vote. All that I would say is that even in the circumstance where there was some very difficult internal differences within the National Party, the Labor Party certainly did not pick up any ground. So, I do not think there is anything that the Labor Party could be cheered about. The serious point that I wish to make in the context of electoral reversals in Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales, and the two lots in Queensland, is that in my view there is a significant difficulty for the Labor Party in looking after its own, in being seen to look after its own, and in not being seen to be looking after its constituency. This legislation, which in part requires additional expenditure for additional ministerial positions which meet the internal requirements of the Labor Party, has nothing to do with the public perception of what is required for good government in this country. I have said before in this Senate that I have a high respect for Senator McMullan, a very fine Western Australian now here representing the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). One might say, `What has he really got to do with the ACT?'. Senator Richardson came from a position in the Labor Party bureaucracy in New South Wales-and from the way that they have behaved over the past week I would have to say we would welcome them as members of the Liberal Party bureaucracy, as they are doing so much good for us-and translated to the Party bureaucracy of this Senate, as did Senator Schacht, Senator Beahan and Senator Aulich. I would only say that that, and the fact that 27 trade union representatives have found themselves a comfortable home in this Parliament, is all part of a pattern against which the people of Australia are revolting. The Liberal Party does not propose to vote against this legislation, to prevent Ministers being paid, because quite clearly, since they hold these ministerial offices and run the great risk of being dismissed from them for failure to administer well, they should at least get the danger money that the ministerial salary involves. So, there is no intention on our part to vote against this legislation. Senator Collins —You are being sanctimonious. Senator CHANEY —When I hear a Labor senator saying that it is sanctimonious to raise these issues, I can only say that that in turn reflects the lack of contact that Labor Party members of parliament now have with the Australian community. I have absolutely no doubt that there is very great sympathy in the Australian community for the views that I have just expressed in this place. The Labor Party will not have the support of the community where it is seen to be looking after its own instead of looking after the needs of the constituency that elected it. I think that this legislation is merely one further indication of the fact that Labor members may not have made Australia a very good place for many Australians but they have certainly made Australia a very good place for themselves. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(12.32) —In summing up the debate I make the following points: The point has been made about the size of the Ministry quite properly here because, in fact, the Ministers of State Bill allocates the additional expenditure, not just the adjustment for a national wage case. I do not think any of us here would dispute that this Bill is correct and proper in regard to the national wage case. It is a penalty put in the Constitution by our forefathers to give Oppositions a free kick once a year-and sometimes twice a year, depending on the wage rises. I point out that in 1971 the coalition Government had 27 Ministers and six Assistant Ministers, which was 17.8 per cent of the Parliament. Indeed, in 1982 the Ministry comprised 15.3 per cent of the Parliament, while in 1988 the figure is 13.4 per cent. Senator Chaney says that the only reason for the expansion of the Ministry from 27 to 30 was a purely factional thing. I deny that. It may have had a role in the decisions to want to accommodate the degree of talent that we have on this side of the Parliament, but I point out that one of the very strong arguments that I advanced for expanding the size of the Ministry concerned the position in this chamber. From 1983 to 1987 we had six Ministers in this chamber. As to such things as chamber duty, the point was that five were members of the Cabinet and more often than not when Cabinet was sitting we had one Minister remaining in this chamber to carry the whole work load. Also, by spreading the load of representing Ministers in another place we have afforded the Opposition the opportunity-not always taken up-to have questions answered rather than put on notice. I will not say that we are totally blameless in this regard of putting some questions on notice. Nevertheless, the new arrangement has had that effect. We do, of course, make the link-although it is not an absolute link-that the reforms we brought about in 1987 mean a reduction in the average staff level of 3,000, with savings of $105m. Compared to the cost of the extra Ministers, that has at least allowed the public to get well and truly out in front in terms of financial savings. Senator Chaney said that Caucus held an election and then had to change the position. That is not quite true. Caucus held an election and determined the result. It was not changed. Changes in preselection of who would run for the Ministry may have been altered by other directives from on high, but certainly Caucus did not reverse its decision. This raises the question of which is the healthier process: is it a more healthy process to have members of parliament elect the Ministry or is it better just to have one leader select the Ministry? Which system is better? I maintain that our system is better, for on the side of politics of those opposite it is almost like a papal infallibility; they elect a leader and then that person has all power to allocate positions. It is not a proposal that we on our side accept. Warts and all, we prefer our system of public head butting, factional manoeuvring, et cetera, but to leave the basic decision to members of the Caucus. The difficulty with the Liberal system is that it leads to sycophancy. It leads to patronage far more than even on the Labor side. We see the results in this Senate. There are at least two people sitting on the back bench who should be sitting on the front bench. Michael Baume, a very capable senator whom I quite often argue and disagree with, was thrown to the Peacock wolves. When the sled was too heavy and the Peacock wolves were chasing Mr Howard in 1987, Michael Baume was thrown over the side to feed them. Senator Chaney —This is the kiss of death. Senator ROBERT RAY —He was brought into this chamber as shadow Minister for health and asked to sell an impossibility in the time period he had. He did not succeed in selling it but otherwise his performance in this place I have always found has been relatively high. I fight like cats and dogs with him but I am very pleased he is not sitting on the front bench. Another couple of people sitting on the back bench I think should obviously be on the front bench. I would not be so crass as to name who should disappear from the front bench to the back bench. I am not going to, as Senator Chaney said, put the kiss of death on their future promotion in the Liberal Party. I think that would be most unfair. Senator Chaney for the second time has referred to Senator McMullan. He asked what right he has to be in this chamber. Senator McMullan has lived in the Australian Capital Territory since 1981. Prior to that he lived in Senator Chaney's State and probably the jealousy factor comes in and Senator Chaney wants to knife an old boy from his State-probably because he came out and endorsed Senator Chaney against Allan Rocher and helped cruel Senator Chaney's chances for preselection. Senator Reid, who again is a competent senator, had South Australia as her place of origin, as we all know. Senator Collins —Crystal Brook. Senator ROBERT RAY —Crystal Brook, I am informed. That has not impaired her performance in this chamber. I suppose there is the irony of whether party officials should be debarred from entering this chamber, whether it is just a pay-off. Senator Chaney would be aware that Senator McMullan had to face a rank and file preselection in the Australian Capital Territory against a local and he was chosen by the Labor Party locally. This raises a chicken and egg argument. Do people become party officials because they are talented or do they get into Parliament just because they are party officials? I tend to rely on the former. Of course, it is not as though the Liberal Party of Australia has never sent public officials here. When I was first elected to this chamber Sir John Carrick was the Leader of the Government. I think he was one of the finest representatives of the Liberal Party ever to be in this chamber. I have said that to him and I believe it. He was party secretary from 1949 to 1971. Did that inhibit his performance in this chamber? Did he represent the electors of New South Wales well? Of course he did. We have Mr Jim Carlton, another former secretary of the New South Wales Liberal Party. Apart from his numeracy, I assume he has adequately represented the people in his electorate relatively well. Senator Maguire —What about Gary Neat? Senator ROBERT RAY —As Senator Maguire has pointed out, Gary Neat ran as a candidate. Quite often party officials will serve. Just because they become party officials does not mean that ipso facto they are divorced from the community, are not active in the community and are not good representatives. Various presidents of the Liberal Party have been elected to this Parliament-Senator Alston, Mr Peacock; need I go on. Mr Alston had to have four or five goes at winning preselection. It is not an easy task. But I assume he did not miss out on the first few occasions simply because he had been party president. Senator Collins —John Elliott is on his way. Senator ROBERT RAY —We might have more Liberal Party officials here, the apparatchiks as Senator Chaney likes to refer to them. In my State there has been such a succession of failures in the position of State director or State secretary that no-one has been promoted to the Senate or the House of Representatives. Senator Maguire —Senator Hill is here, too. Senator ROBERT RAY —I think Senator Hill achieved his greatness after he came here. He was South Australian president and campaign director against the Bannon Government, which has seen the largest Labor majority in South Australian history. However, we will trade most of these points across the chamber. I believe that the expansion of the Ministry from 27 to 30 is justifiable on grounds other than factional convenience. I believe the task in government becomes harder and harder as the Federal responsibilities and areas that it gets into are wider. I think a team of 30 is not unreasonable. In proportion to the responsibility of State Ministers or those in any other country, I think it weighs up relatively well. I might say that the figure of 30 will probably be inviolable in future for anyone who is thinking of a future expansion. There are 30 suites in the executive wing of the new Parliament House. There is no room for any more. I would suggest that more than anything else will predetermine not only that there will be no more increases in the Ministry; it will be very difficult, I would suggest, to have an increase in the size of Parliament simply because we have built an expensive building that is supposed to last for 200 years and there is not room for any more there. I know that the Liberal Party opposed the expansion in 1983. It was not an unreasonable expansion compared with State parliaments. There had not been an expansion of Federal Parliament since 1949. One of Senator Chaney's last points was that that expansion meant that no party could get a majority in this chamber. That may be true. I am not sure that under the previous system anyone was likely to. Senator Chaney —It would require unusual or extraordinary circumstances. Senator ROBERT RAY —The perverse thing is that the real chance for someone to get a majority here is in a double dissolution rather than in separate Senate elections. However, in general, having answered those points, I think the Bill should have a relatively speedy passage. I thank Senator Chaney for his contribution. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Sitting suspended from 12.43 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations to comments yesterday by the Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, in which, referring to employers and unions involved in the Quadrant building dispute, he said: Both ought to come to their senses, stop this petty squabbling, childish fighting, sit around the table, work out their differences, get on with the industry in Canberra. I ask: How can the Government possibly bracket both parties to this dispute in the way that he did, bearing in mind the total condemnation of union behaviour by Commissioner Baird of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Is the Minister aware that the Commissioner has said, `There is almost no credibility with the undertakings by the union'? Is he aware that Commissioner Baird has also said, `It has gone beyond the normal industrial relationship' and that he has `leaned over backwards to ensure that the union's position was put'? In view of Commissioner Baird's condemnation of union conduct in this dispute, after which he directed that all bans be lifted, why does Mr Punch seek to apportion equal responsibility for the events on the Quadrant site to the employer and the employees? Does the Minister agree that it is uncontestable, from Commissioner Baird's findings, that the unions will have no part of the round table approach suggested by Mr Punch and that the Minister's comments yesterday are both meaningless and misleading? Will the Government indicate its support for resolute action against this disgraceful use of standover tactics by rogue elements of the trade union movement? Senator BUTTON —I do not see great value in being judgmental and allocating blame by percentages, or anything like that, to particular parties in industrial disputes. Probably Mr Punch, in saying what he did, had much the same sort of view. I only have to remind Senator Chaney that earlier this week he asked me questions about this issue in which he repeated allegations of criminality against certain people and then said, `What is the Government doing about that?'. I think in yesterday's answer I indicated to Senator Chaney that if criminal matters are involved, the appropriate people to make allegations of criminality are those who are the victims of them, and to the police. As long ago as 30 March Government spokesmen were advising the Master Builders Association to do that, and it did not do it. I do not know what Mr Punch meant by saying that both parties ought to come to their senses, but if that is the situation which the employers are alleging, they should take the appropriate action in relation to the allegations of criminality and do what has been suggested to them, rather than refer the matter back to this Government, whose functions is not to be a universal pimp in respect of allegations of criminality. In spite of that, the Government has taken the action which I referred to yesterday. I am not here to argue any brief for the unions involved. The conduct which has been publicised and referred to in Senator Chaney's questions is disgraceful conduct and is not conduct one would expect in the normal concourse of an industrial relationship. I am not able to interpret Minister Punch's mind any further than that other than to say that he is indicating his view that both parties have some responsibilities in this matter. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. My supplementary question relates to the inconsistency in the Minister's reply. He started by saying that there is no value in being judgmental in these matters and then went on to concede that what had been drawn to his attention appeared to be disgraceful conduct. I ask the Minister: Has he or any other Minister in the Government examined the record of the hearings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to which I referred in my question, a record which shows quite clearly disgraceful conduct on behalf of a series of trade unions and a lack of capacity by the parties to deal with this matter in the way that Minister Punch is now recommending? Has any Minister examined this matter and considered whether appropriate remedies are available? Will the Government, in the light of this clear demonstration of disgraceful conduct, stand behind the parties who are being subjected to this industrial blackmail and attack? Senator BUTTON —I have not read the transcript of the Arbitration Commission hearing. I am sure that other Ministers have, but I have not. I will just rely on what Senator Chaney tells me is in it. On the basis of his reporting of what is in it-- Senator Chaney —You seem vaguely amused. You should read it. It would take the smile off your face. Senator BUTTON —Perhaps Senator Chaney should handle this dispute himself. He would fix it up overnight, as he did the Social Security Department. We all remember that one. I have not read the transcript. I rely on what Senator Chaney says about it. Having said that, I really do not have much to add to the answer which I gave before. There have been all sorts of allegations in Senator Chaney's questions and I have responded to most of them. I do not know that I can take the matter any further than that. There is a remedy available to the employers if they want to exercise it. Senator COLSTON —Did the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs see a report on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television last night alleging improper treatment of a young Thai woman who was stripped at Sydney Airport, searched and sent to Villawood Detention Centre? Will the Minister investigate the way in which this young woman was treated and ensure that Customs and immigration officials treat incoming women passengers with appropriate dignity and respect? Senator REYNOLDS —I did not see the television report of this incident but I have heard about it. Senator Colston raised it with me yesterday. This morning I sought information about it. I am advised that, while going through Customs at Sydney Airport, the young woman was selected for examination, which eventually involved a body search. The body search involved the removal of clothing. The body search was conducted by female Customs officers only, as is normal in the case of women and girls. During the search, correspondence was found on the young woman's person which indicated that, although she had a visitor's visa, she planned to remain permanently in Australia. This matter was referred to an immigration inspector. Following an interview by the immigration inspector, it was decided that the young woman should be refused entry. She was, therefore, detained in custody at Villawood Detention Centre pending her transfer from Australia. As to whether Customs and immigration officials treat women passengers with dignity and respect, I am advised that the Australian Customs Service has instituted standard procedures designed to ensure that this occurs in these circumstances. Immigration officials also operate under guidelines designed to ensure that all individuals are treated with appropriate dignity and respect. Senator Peter Baume will recall that he raised an incident recently during the Estimates hearings. He will be pleased, I am sure, to receive some information about that matter shortly. Senator Peter Baume —In due course. Senator REYNOLDS —In due course. I appreciate Senator Colston's concern. I am sure that all honourable senators would want to be reassured on this matter. I can assure Senator Colston that I will be continuing my discussions about this incident with my colleague Mr Holding and will advise him in due course. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer him to the reply supplied by the Minister for Industrial Relations following Senator Chaney's question on Monday of this week about the Quadrant building site in Canberra. While I welcome the decision to institute a police inquiry into allegations of criminal behaviour in that matter, to which the Minister has referred, I refer the Minister to Mr Willis's criticism of the Master Builders Association (MBA) because it had not: sought to obtain a bans clause to activate the compliance provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I take it, incidentally, that that is what the Minister had in mind when, in response to Senator Chaney a few minutes ago, he asserted that the MBA-I think I have the quote right-`had a remedy available to it'. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that when his colleague in the other place introduced his industrial relations Bill on 14 May last year, the same Mr Willis referred to that bans clause procedure in the following words-I quote from the second reading speech: . . . the present bans clause provisions which have long since fallen in to disrepute and are now substantially moribund. What point would there have been in the Master Builders Association seeking to use procedures which, in the words of the Minister himself, `have long since fallen into disrepute and are now substantially moribund'? Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need for new procedures which will permit direct reference of defiance of Commission rulings to the ordinary courts as, I note, were contained in the Bill introduced into the Senate last November by my colleague Senator Chaney? Senator BUTTON —As I recall Mr Willis's answer to Senator Chaney's question, I thought the answer was that the MBA had not exhausted the processes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I was not aware that it specifically referred to bans clauses, but if Senator Stone says that it also refers to bans clauses I accept that. In so far as the question relates to the second reading speech on a Bill which was abandoned by the Government last year, I am not able to comment on that. I think that there are bans clauses still inserted into awards and consequences follow from breaches of those bans clauses. Whether or not it is a fair characterisation as moribund, I am not sure. It depends on the circumstances. On the question of new procedures, I do not want to prejudge anything that the Minister might introduce in the new Industrial Relations Bill which I understand is to be introduced into the Parliament shortly, but I suspect, without being able to flag in detail the contents of that Bill, that it will address some of the issues to which Senator Stone referred. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. What is the progress on the study or studies into the standardisation of the Adelaide-Melbourne railway-the only mainland capital railway line not now on a standard gauge basis-being conducted by Australian National and Victorian Rail? What are the latest cost estimates for the various options of converting the line from broad gauge to standard gauge, and what are those options? Senator GARETH EVANS —A preliminary evaluation and standardisation of the Adelaide to Melbourne rail link was completed in May 1983 by the Australian National Railways Commission and the Victorian State Transport Authority. This showed that the project could be economically viable under certain conditions. A further assessment of the project was required to sort out fundamental differences between the two systems on capital cost, potential markets and new traffic likely to be generated. These differences between the two systems have not yet been resolved although the assessment of options is ongoing. The overall estimated cost-the present day cost based on 1983 parameters-of standardisation of the line between Melbourne and Adelaide, including the Mount Gambier line, is $250m. Since late 1985, Australian National studies have focused on alternatives to standardisation, in particular, improvement of clearance and transit times. Senator McLEAN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations aware that it is alleged that officials of the Waterside Workers Federation in Melbourne are visiting businesses to encourage them to advertise in publications of the union, with a minimum cost of $500 per advertisement, and telling these business representatives that, if they do not place advertisements, the Waterside Workers Federation cannot guarantee that goods imported or exported by their businesses will not be substantially delayed on the docks? Have there been reports of such practices in the past? If so, can the Minister comment on how widespread this practice is in respect of other Australian ports? Is the Government prepared to do anything about it? Senator BUTTON —This allegation was brought to my attention shortly before I came into Question Time. Knowing as I do the leadership of the Waterside Workers Federation in Melbourne, I have the gravest difficulty in believing the story. I regard the leadership in the port of Melbourne as being people of considerable integrity. I cannot answer for every waterside worker in the port of Melbourne, but I am talking about the leadership of the Waterside Workers Federation in that State. Senator Childs —Or any publishing company. Senator BUTTON —As Senator Childs appropriately interjects, sometimes organisations such as the Waterside Workers Federation, as do businesses, engage consultants or PR people to look after their journals and so on for them. There has been substantial evidence on all sides of the fence of malpractice in the hands of those sorts of people soliciting business by threat. Having made those comments, I certainly will have the matter investigated. It is something which no government could approve. In regard to the suggestion contained in the honourable senator's question that this practice might be widespread, I have no information about that at all. I think it unlikely. Senator CHILDS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, relates to the tax treatment of capital gains made by senior executives of takeover target companies when they accept offers for shares they have acquired through special executive incentive schemes. Is it a fact that capital gains of a size which is very large by comparison to the incomes of ordinary Australian workers can be realised in this way? Is it a fact that, prior to the Government's reform of the tax system, such capital gains were taxed at rates far lower than those applied to the incomes of ordinary Australian workers? Is the Minister aware that Mr John Elliott, head of Elders IXL and President of the Liberal Party of Australia, has been calling for the abolition of capital gains taxation in Australia? What sorts of incentives would such an abolition provide to the senior executives of companies such as Elders IXL, Elders Resources, et cetera? Senator WALSH —The second last part of the question asked whether it is a fact that Mr Elliott has been calling for the abolition of capital gains tax. I understand that that is a fact, and also that he has been calling for the abolition of the fringe benefits tax and a few other things. He wants to replace all those taxes with a tax on football tickets and meat pies that people munch in the outer at the Princes Park football ground, while he is sitting up in the Fosters box with his Vat 69, his free lunch and his free ticket to the footie. As to the more substantial part of the question, yes, it is a fact that very large capital gains can be realised in the shonky way outlined in the question. Last week the Melbourne Age reported that the Chief Executive of Elders Resources-not Mr Elliott, incidentally-a Mr Lord, was the holder of 3.5 million 1c partly paid shares in that company as a result of a special executive incentive measure. According to the Age report, the 3.5 million shares were obtained by Mr Lord for an outlay of just over $35,000. He has now accepted a friendly takeover offer from New Zealand Forest Products and stands to receive $5.28m for the $35,000 outlay, which is certainly a tidy profit. With regard to the capital gains taxation aspects, I understand that not all of the 3.5 million shares had been purchased before 15 September 1985, which I think was the operative date. Therefore, Mr Lord will have to pay capital gains tax on whatever number of shares have been purchased since then. Because of the grandfathering provisions, those which were purchased before that date will not be subject to capital gains tax. Of course, there would be no fairness in exempting that portion of the transaction upon which he is liable to pay capital gains tax from capital gains tax, as John Elliott and others would have us do, through the abolition of capital gains taxes. So there is no fairness in the abolish capital gains tax proposition. It has nothing to commend it on grounds of economic efficiency, either. I was asked what incentives the abolition of capital gains tax would provide for senior executives of large business enterprises. There are two answers to that aspect of the question, depending on whether the takeover bids under those circumstances were friendly or unfriendly. As far as unfriendly takeover bids are concerned, it would give senior executives in inefficient, moribund companies an incentive to provide themselves with a golden parachute. They could walk away from their companies with huge tax free lump sums if their companies were the subject of successful takeover bids-which would, of course, inhibit the efficiency improving features which the takeover mechanism is claimed to have. If there were friendly takeovers, it would give senior executives an incentive to use friendly takeovers as an opportunity for lining their own pockets at the expense of the taxpayers and all the other shareholders whose interests those senior executives are supposed to protect. That is, of course, exactly what John Elliott did when he engineered the friendly takeover of Henry Jones IXL Ltd by Elders under the taxation system presided over by Mr Howard-an action which, incidentally, led to a comment in the Melbourne Age by Terry McCrann, who by no stretch of the imagination could be regarded as a friend of the present Government, the Australian Labor Party, or anything very far removed from the far right of Australian politics. Terry McCrann said of Elders takeover of Henry Jones: Nevertheless, the fact that Elder Smith took over Henry Jones, rather than the reverse, did have some beneficial spin-offs for Mr Elliott and a number of other colleagues. Shortly before Elder Smith unveiled its bid for Henry Jones, the leading executives in Henry Jones outlaid $19,000 in taking up 1c paid shares under an executive incentive scheme. The Elder Smith offer delivered a clear-tax-free-profit of $4.16 million to those executives. Mr Elliott himself cleared $657,000 on a $3000 outlay. Mr Lord is following the example that John Elliott established. He has done it partly at the expense of honest taxpayers, as did Mr Elliott, and partly at the expense of all the other shareholders in the target company whose interests he was supposed to protect. Of course, Mr Elliott would cover the revenue losses from this sort of shonky business activity, as I said before, by making people in the outer at Princes Park pay tax on their meat pies and footie tickets. Senator CHAPMAN —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations noted today's reports that unions representing 140,000 public servants will seek an across the board pay rise of at least 6 per cent from the Federal Government? Is the Government concerned that these unions, along with those in the metal and building industries-the latter's claim was the subject of Senator Chaney's question of the Minister yesterday-are trying to stitch up pay deals in advance of consideration of new wages guidelines? Will the Government give an undertaking that it will not agree to any pay rise for its own employees before completion of the review of the wages system by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Will he confirm to the Senate that that review is scheduled to begin next month and that, as the Commission said in its 1987 wage case judgment, the existing principles will apply until the review is completed? In other words, will he confirm that, despite the spate of recent claims and union pressure to settle ahead of any new guidelines, claims now being pursued are subject to the existing guidelines, including the no extra claims commitment? Senator BUTTON —The short answer to the question is yes. The claim by the Public Service unions that Senator Chapman referred to has not been considered by the Government. The answer to whether the existing guidelines apply until such time as the national wage case bench considers new guidelines is yes. Senator McMULLAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce been drawn to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures released on Monday which show a significant increase in research and development being performed by business and industry? Can the Minister explain whether these are one-off increases or part of a trend. Can the Minister tell the Senate where in industry the greatest increases are occurring? What is the Government doing to improve industry's research and development performance? Senator BUTTON —In some ways the question is a statistical one and in that sense boring but it does go to the heart of Australia's economic redevelopment and the new information to which Senator McMullan referred. I did not mean that Senator McMullan was boring; I meant that the answer was going to be boring. Opposition senators can nod off for a minute or two, if they like, if they are not already asleep. The new information shows that research and development expenditure in Australian business stood at just over $1,082m in 1986-87, an increase from $374m in 1981-82. That represents a real increase of 85 per cent since 1981-82. That does not mean that those figures are good enough, but the trend in respect of research and development expenditure is encouraging. Senator McMullan asked where the expenditure appeared to be taking place. I make the observation that the greatest increase in research and development is occurring in the high technology and information industry areas. While research and development expenditure is increasing at an annual rate of 12 per cent for business generally, in these areas the rate is more than double that figure. These are the industries which are dominated by young, forward looking firms which do not rely on tariff protection but which see the world as their market. It is also true that these sorts of firms are providing the means of creating greater efficiency within our traditional industries. They are the providers of new systems-essentially in the services sector-relating to productivity and efficiency in manufacturing. They are also prepared to patent and register their ideas and to export new ideas and products to provide Australia with valuable export income. I make the point more emphatically that the figures for payments and receipts for technical know-how are increasing significantly. These figures represent the money being paid and received for licensing of patents and other forms of technology transfer. The ABS figures show that we are paying more for registered knowledge and technology-40 per cent more-than we were. Importantly, they also show that over the last two years Australian firms have increased their receipts from technical know-how by 108 per cent, from $36m to $87m. The point I am simply seeking to make is that we are increasingly deriving an economic benefit from research and development investment and are progressively shifting the balance of technological know-how. This is quite apparent from the ratio of receipts to payments for technology transfer, which has gone up from 13 per cent in 1981-82 to 33 per cent in 1986-87. In referring to private sector investment in research and development, let me again make the point that while there is a significant improvement, which I have indicated, it is not good enough. The research and development budget of the whole of the private sector in Australia is about the same as the research and development budget of a company such as Hewlett Packard in the United States-one company in the United States compared with the whole of the private sector research and development budget in Australia. Of course, there are reasons for that. In the past the incentives environment has been wrong and certainly, if the private sector is able to indulge in an overreliance on public sector research and development, it will not take the opportunities which it ought to take in respect of its own research and development. The figures are encouraging and show the right directions and steady progress, but I add the caveat that they are not yet good enough. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Can the Minister provide any explanation for the extraordinary delay in finalising the Australian Federal Police (AFP) investigation into the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd campaign donation to the Australian Labor Party, an investigation which began 2 1/2 months ago? In particular, can the Minister state whether police are still interviewing or seeking to interview anyone? Have their investigations been impeded by the refusal of any person or persons to cooperate? When does he expect the police to report back to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)? Senator Michael Baume —Don't try to snow us. Senator TATE —I resent the interjection, `Don't try to snow us'. Senator Michael Baume —That is Jim Snow. Senator TATE —I know. I do not think the honourable senator has any allegation against him or inference in that respect. The AFP conducted an investigation into a possible breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act relating to the Harris-Daishowa donation. As honourable senators will know, and as I think this came up at the Estimates committee, that report was forwarded by way of a brief of evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, subsequently asked for further inquiries to be conducted. I am advised by the Australian Federal Police that those inquiries are continuing and have been prolonged due to difficulties in arranging mutually convenient times to interview two witnesses. When these interviews are completed, the Federal Police will be providing information to the DPP to assist in his adjudication of the case. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I asked the Minister a question which he ignored: When does he expect the police to report back to the DPP? Senator TATE —I have no idea when the police will provide the further information to the DPP. Senator Messner —What questions are you asking of it? Senator TATE —I am not trying to interfere in the conduct of this operation by the Australian Federal Police at the further request of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The decision as to the investigation of this matter is entirely within the competence, and properly so, of the investigating officers and their superior officers in the Federal Police. Senator DEVEREUX —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to the document released on Sunday, 17 April, by the Business Council of Australia (BCA) titled Government Expenditure Control-1988-89? Does that document argue that overall macro-economic policy-making in Australia would be facilitated if State governments were to improve the accounting framework they use in presenting their own budgetary data? Does the Minister agree with the BCA on this matter? Senator WALSH —I have had my attention drawn to that section of the document and it does indeed argue that economic policy-making in Australia would be enhanced if the State governments were to follow the example of the Commonwealth and publish data using the type of accounting framework that is currently used by the Commonwealth. The BCA also argues that the States should follow the example set by this Government, the present Federal Government, in publishing Forward Estimates of expenditure, something which the previous Government and the previous Treasurer squibbed on doing, principally I suppose because they did not want anybody to know the sort of impending Budget deficit or blow-out in outlays that they were leaving behind them when they were ignominiously kicked out of office early in 1983. I certainly agree with the conclusion of the BCA that the publication of that sort of information makes for a better informed society and is likely to lead to better outcomes, but in some respects it does not go far enough. It does not make any mention of the sort of dodgy accounting practice used by some State governments, predictably Queensland being the most spectacular example, which imposes hidden taxes on mining companies via excessive rail freights, which enables the Queensland Government to fiddle both sides of its Budget; that is, to present a misleadingly low figure on outlays and a misleadingly low figure on taxation. If the Queensland Government were to adopt the practice adopted by any set of accountants who aim to inform the public rather than misinform the public and were to levy a tax explicitly on Queensland mining companies or somewhere else, that would certainly be an improvement. The method that the Queensland Government uses to complete the mechanism to fiddle both its outlays and receipts is, of course, that the hidden tax collected from mining companies via excessive rail freights is then used to cross-subsidise the loss making sections of the Queensland railways, keeping the whole operation off-Budget when it should be on-Budget. In other States that sort of subsidisation of unprofitable railways is explicit. The only other comment I want to make is that I hope, once again, that Senator Stone uses his influence with the Queensland National Party to ensure that the State Government in Queensland adopts a superior-both economically and morally-system of accounting. If I remember correctly, Senator Stone was not too keen on publishing Forward Estimates in 1983, so I am not so confident that he will actually use his undoubted influence on the Queensland Government to get it to behave more honestly than it has behaved in the past. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In any taxation rate changes to be made in May or August this year, will the Government confirm that the alignment of the top personal income rate with the company tax rate will be maintained? Does the Government stand by the Treasurer's statement of 19 September 1985 when he referred to `the vital innovation of aligning the top personal income tax rate with the company tax rate'? The Treasurer went on to say: In a stroke, this- that is, the alignment of rates- will make a whole host of tax avoidance devices futile. If the Government lowers the company tax rate, will it lower personal tax rates simultaneously, or will it be content, in Mr Keating's words, to tolerate a fresh incentive to tax avoidance? Senator WALSH —I have been asked to give a guarantee that the present identity, although it is not quite an identity at the moment, between the top personal taxation rate and the company tax rate will be preserved. No, I will not give any such guarantee that that will happen, nor am I making any predictions about where the company tax rate or the top personal tax rate might finish up. However, as the Treasurer stated in 1985, if there is a very big gap between the top personal rate and the corporate rate, there is some risk that people will find ways of exploiting the system in order to evade the taxation that they ought to be paying. One thing which this Government will have to be particularly careful of is that opportunities are not opened up for such people to exploit the tax system in that way. I have no doubt that the one who would be up to his ears in exploiting any loophole that opened up would of course be the Federal President of the Liberal Party. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Walsh is continually using Question Time, clearly quite irrelevant of any question he might be asked, simply to attack anybody who is in any way showing support for the Liberal Party. I do not hear him raising the affairs of the Prime Minister's rich mates. That seems to be totally beyond Senator Walsh. He is very keen on attacking anyone who is identified with the Liberal Party. I ask you, in the interests of having a sensible Question Time and one which is in some way in line with the dignity of a House of parliament, to remind the Minister that he has some responsibility to the public and not just to his squalid political party. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, but I remind all honourable senators of the resolution that was passed in February about attacking members of the public during Question Time, and under privilege. Senator WALSH —With respect to that ruling or request, Mr Elliott has been described in the daily Press as a tax avoider of olympian proportions-`olympic stature' I think was the term used. Since he has not chosen to take any legal action pursuant to that, I presume his inaction and inertia are based on the presumption that the defence of truth and public interest would prevail. Governments certainly do have to be careful, or pay heed to the danger, of loopholes or potential means of evading tax being exploited. I repeat that Mr Elliott's record clearly establishes this, as does Mr Lord's. He sets up arrangements which, firstly, diddle the shareholders in the company that he is supposed to be responsible for and, secondly, escapes paying taxes on the proceeds that he diddled from the shareholders whose interests he is supposed to be looking after. That is a question of historical fact. I have no doubt that if the opportunity arises for people such as Mr Elliott to avoid tax in the future, they will be in it up to their ears. Nor do I have any doubt that John Howard would allow them to get away with it if he was again in a position of political power. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I remind the Minister that I referred to a value put forward by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, in 1985, and I refer to the recent discussions between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) about tax cut-pay rise trade-offs. Is it not the case that in these past few weeks the Government has explored with the ACTU the option of making company tax cuts in May while, on account of a wage rise, leaving personal tax rates untouched? Senator WALSH —I have not been privy to the discussions which have taken place, but I would be surprised if that were entirely correct. Senator BURNS —My question is directed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the latest bankruptcy statistics which were released today? What is the Government doing about the increase in consumer bankruptcies evident in recent statistics? Senator BOLKUS —The bankruptcy statistics were in fact released yesterday, and they cover the period of the first quarter of 1988. They show the number of bankruptcies and administrative orders which are either voluntary or involuntary but which are both under parts IV and XI of the Bankruptcy Act. Senator Michael Baume —Have you got any scripted jokes today? Senator BOLKUS —The honourable senator is a scripted joke. The figures also cover the number of insolvencies, which include voluntary arrangements, assignments and compositions. I can understand a former partner of Patrick Partners wanting to intervene in a question on bankruptcy, but the statistics actually show that in the first three months of 1988 there were 2,136 bankruptcies compared with 1,942 in the same period of 1987, and 235 insolvencies compared with 278 in the same period. Accordingly, there is an increase of almost 11 per cent, if we extrapolate these figures to cover a full year period. Arising from these statistics there are a number of points we should note. The number of business bankruptcies is in fact declining. At the same time the number of consumer, non-business related bankruptcies is increasing. There has been a fair degree of fluctuation over the last five years, but the dominant point in this quarter's figures is that the number of business bankruptcies in Australia has been steadily declining, and that decline has been emphasised in these figures. There has also been an apparent decline in the figures for Tasmania and Queensland, but I point this out with some caution because the figures for those two States are provisional and not verified. Over the last 12 months those two States have had the largest number of bankruptcies of all States. I table three tables setting out, firstly, the number of business and non-business bankruptcies under parts IV and XI for the years 1981-82 to 1986-87; secondly, the major causes of bankruptcies in the same period; and thirdly, the number of insolvencies under part X for the same period. I point out, as I maintained earlier, that the figures show that business bankruptcies have been relatively stable over the term of the Hawke Government. The Government believes that maintaining stability in relation to bankruptcies, as opposed to the inherited rate of increase in bankruptcies, is an indication that our economic policies are starting to bite and to work. The second part of Senator Burns's question related very much to what we are doing about bankruptcies in the non-business area. I refer the senator and the Senate to a forum that is being conducted today and tomorrow in Canberra under the auspices of the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council. That meeting has brought together a whole range of people from financial institutions, government and consumer organisations, with the main topics of discussion being the granting and levels of credit and the general problems related to overcommitment. The Government hopes that that forum will provide an opportunity for all sectors to make an input to the policy development program. I for one am looking forward to the report from the National Consumer Affairs Advisory Council at the conclusion of the discussions. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. I draw the Minister's attention to Dr Blewett's statement, which was read out on A Current Affair on Monday evening, concerning alleged medifraud, in which he said that Dr Menon had not to date provided information to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to substantiate his allegations of fraud. Does this statement not contradict the findings of the AFP that, although no fraud was identified, there was substantial evidence to warrant further investigations? Are such further investigations being made? Alternatively, are the police satisfied, as Dr Blewett appears to be, that the cheques were issued through computer error, which was rectified last November? Senator TATE —I am not aware of the program-I believe it was A Current Affair-broadcast last Monday evening on which it was alleged that Dr Blewett, the Federal Minister for Community Services and Health, had made certain statements. I have no brief on the current state of the investigation undertaken by the AFP in relation to allegations of medifraud. Senator Newman —We asked about that at the Estimates. You must have the answer. Senator TATE —I will try to get an answer by the end of Question Time and, if that is not possible, I will certainly have one by tomorrow. Senator NEWMAN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Perhaps the Minister in getting that answer for me would check whether the three cheques issued in February and March this year, and hence after the date on which the so-called error is supposed to have been rectified, have also been brought to the attention of the AFP. Senator TATE —I will check that. The honourable senator interjected something about Estimates committees. That was before last Monday's A Current Affair program, if that is what she is talking about. Anyway, I will undertake to find out what I can about this matter. Senator COONEY —Has the Minister for Justice become aware of recent reports that the Secretary of the Australian Federal Police Association has expressed reservations about the operation and continuation of the National Crime Authority (NCA)? Does the Government find any merit in those reservations, and if so what? Senator TATE —I have become aware of Press reports of certain submissions intended to be put by the Australian Federal Police Association to the parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Obviously I am not privy to the proceedings of that parliamentary Committee, but in so far as those Press reports indicated that the Federal Police Association was opposed to the continued existence of the National Crime Authority, the position of the Government is very clear, as is that of the Opposition. That is evidenced by the fact that a Bill has already been passed through the House of Representatives, I believe unanimously-in other words, with the concurrence of all sides of politics in that chamber-which, when it comes into this chamber, will be seen to have the effect of extending the life of the National Crime Authority beyond the sunset period set for it in the original legislation. The Government remains absolutely firm in the view that the National Crime Authority should continue. In saying that, I do not in any way wish to indicate that the statutory charter given to it by this Parliament is necessarily the be all and end all and could not have some improvement made to it. In that respect the report of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority will play an important part in the further refinement of the role of the Authority within the Australian community as one of the weapons in the arsenal in the fight against organised crime. It should be evident to all honourable senators that the National Crime Authority, in the short period of its existence, has proved its worth. Only last week there was a major drug haul, involving some $80m worth of heroin. The drugs were seized and charges were laid as a result of an NCA operation conducted in part as a result of information obtained in Hong Kong. That type of operation is good evidence that this new body within the Australian crime fighting community is extremely effective. For that reason the Australian Federal Police Association is wasting a lot of political energy in opposing the continued existence of the National Crime Authority, though its comments on any particular flaw it sees in the Authority's operations are, of course, matters for the parliamentary Joint Committee to assess. The Government looks forward to receiving the Committee's report, one hopes before the Senate debates the repeal of the National Crime Authority's sunset clause. I hope that that debate will take place in late May. Senator MacGIBBON —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Resources, relates to the Government's professed concern about recent allegations concerning the end use of Australian uranium. Why has the Hawke Labor Government refused to fund fully the International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards inspection budget for this year, funding only 65 per cent of Australia's contribution while at the same time having no difficulty in finding extra funds for other international organisations? Has the Government given consideration to an effective control on the end use of Australia's uranium which could be achieved by supplying yellowcake in the form of furnace fuel rods? This would involve Australia in the enrichment of uranium up to the 3 per cent level, and then the manufacture of metal pellets for the fabrication of the fuel rods. Any country seeking to use Australian uranium in this form as a feed stock for nuclear weapons would then be faced with taking three very expensive steps backwards through the cycle, which would add at least 25 per cent to the cost of this source of fuel and therefore make it quite uneconomic to use for weapons purposes. Senator COOK —To take the last part of the question first, the Government has a clear policy on uranium, a policy that is well known in the community. Senator Puplick —A policy that you support unreservedly. Senator COOK —Of course. Senator MacGibbon knows what that policy is-I do not have to remind him-but for the sake of the Hansard record it is that we supply uranium but insist on strict international safeguards and that that uranium goes to countries which have recognised and concluded with us a treaty to observe those safeguards. Those safeguards do not include the return of spent or waste fuel, to be deposited in Australia, or the things that Senator MacGibbon has referred to in the last half of his question. I will put that part of the question which relates to Atomic Energy Agency funding on notice and reply in due course. Senator MacGIBBON —I have a supplementary question, Mr President. The Minister does not understand my question. I said nothing at all about the return of spent fuel rods; I said that the uranium could be supplied as a source of furnace fuel in the form of fuel rods rather than as yellowcake, and that that would provide an effective brake on its being used as a source of fuel for nuclear weapons in any country. Senator COOK —I am pleased that Senator MacGibbon has taken the trouble to make his question clearer. In terms of that proposition, Senator MacGibbon would know that it is not the policy of the Government to do that. Senator COULTER —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, and I ask it in the context of Senator Button's known interest in and concern with the improvement in the quality of Australian industry. In view of the widely perceived need to reduce drastically emissions of ozone depleting substances, most urgently chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and recognising the present widespread application of these agents, particularly in the field of refrigeration and air conditioning, does the Minister consider that inevitably new technologies involving the recycling of CFCs will be rapidly developed and deployed and that these will have not only environmental benefits but also considerable economic benefits for the nation that successfully markets these recycling strategies? Is the Minister aware that Canada, Japan and possibly other nations are making a special effort to develop recycling strategies and their associated hardware? Finally, as the first country to come up with these recycling strategies is likely to make huge profits, what measures is the Minister taking to encourage Australian industry to research and develop these strategies? Senator BUTTON —I think everybody, particularly those in the Government, is aware of the fact that many countries are taking steps to preserve the earth's ozone layer through restrictions on the emission of chlorofluorocarbons. Senator Crichton-Browne —What was that again? Senator BUTTON —I said chlorofluorocarbons. Is that all right? I can manage such words but I have difficulty with names like the honourable senator's. In some cases this work is being undertaken by recycling techniques or the more efficient application of current procedures, but the major effort is being directed to the development of environmentally safe alternative chemicals. I am advised that considerable progress on these alternatives has already been made. For example, at least two large international companies believe that they will have a safe alternative product on the market within five years. There is also a multi-company international consortium researching new products. So the matter is being considered by companies at an international level. I am advised that recycling is not always suitable. The Australian chlorofluorocarbons manufacturing industry is small by world standards. The Government's present research and development assistance schemes, including tax concessions and the grants for industry research and development schemes, are available to that industry if it is keen to take up the opportunities provided by those schemes. I remind the honourable senator that many of the companies operating here are subsidiaries of multinational companies and it may be in their corporate interests, in their view, to do such work overseas. However, in view of the likely development of new and safe products, I am told that it is possible that the benefits of recycling strategies may be shortlived, that is, they may be of value for only a year or two. Senator COULTER —I ask a supplementary question. Evidently the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce is not aware that the alternatives to which he refers are the CFC123 and CFC134A, both of which are thought to be substitutes because they are only partly halogenated. Is the Minister aware that some 27 per cent of the greenhouse effect during the next 50 years will be due to CFCs whether or not they are halogenated and therefore the substitutes, while they may be a short term solution to ozone depletion, are not a solution to greenhouse warming and therefore recycling is indeed the solution to both problems-that is, both ozone depletion and greenhouse warming? Senator BUTTON —For the first time in a decade in the Senate I am starting to feel like Jim Webster, a former Minister for Science, because I have never heard of CFC123 or CFC134A. I appreciate the honourable senator's information that 27 per cent of the greenhouse effect is not capable of being dealt with by the substitutes to which he referred. I take the question on board and I will try to obtain an answer that is more learned than that which I am capable of giving. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Recent legislation passed in this place has established the Child Support Agency and the child support scheme. When will the scheme start, what details are now in place for its implementation and what will be the advantages of the new scheme? Senator BOLKUS —I am in a position to inform the Senate that the Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, today confirmed that the new child support scheme will commence operation on 1 June. The Government views the scheme as one of the most significant social reforms in the history of the Commonwealth. As honourable senators will know, the scheme will enable sole parents to have access to regular and reliable maintenance payments without fear of humiliation or violence. It is also important to note that the scheme has been introduced in a context where 70 per cent of non-custodial parents do not pay any maintenance regularly, and where this inadequacy in the current system contributes significantly to the number of children and parents in poverty. I refer now to the features and objectives of the scheme. It will substantially increase the number of sole parent families receiving maintenance, it will provide an effective mechanism for the collection and enforcement of maintenance orders, and it will help to ensure that maintenance orders are received regularly. The other by-product of the scheme is that it will relieve taxpayers of a substantial burden. In relation to the mechanism of the scheme, stage 1 will see the establishment of the Child Support Agency within the Australian Taxation Office. Such an Agency will be responsible for the collection of maintenance orders and the payment of support will be through the Department of Social Security. Stage 1 of the scheme will also allow coverage to pensioners and beneficiaries, people who separate at the start of the scheme and people who have not lived together but whose children are born after 1 June. In relation to publicity for the scheme, I point out that, first, all existing sole parent pensioners will be contacted by mail as part of a comprehensive information campaign; and, secondly, a special 008 number will be set up as a hot line so that eligible people will have access to information. Senator Vanstone —I ask the Minister to table the document from which he was quoting. Senator BOLKUS —I will gladly do so, and I offer to give Senator Vanstone a briefing at some stage. Senator BUTTON —Earlier in Question Time Senator McLean asked me a question about alleged threats by the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia (WWF) in Melbourne that if business people did not advertise in its journal their goods would not be cleared through the port of Melbourne. I have obtained additional information to the effect that no Waterside Workers Federation journal is produced in Melbourne. However, there is a national publication which originates in Sydney, advertising for which is organised through an advertising agency. I am told that there has been a racket-if I may call it that-of people purporting to represent the Waterside Workers Federation. Senator Panizza —Oh! Senator BUTTON —Is there something wrong with the honourable senator? I am advised that those people are approaching employers and seeking advertising. The WWF has placed the matter in the hands of the New South Wales police and it has also taken out public advertisements warning people of this practice. The WWF publication, known as Maritime Workers, now carries a message indicating that it is the only WWF publication. Senator BOLKUS —During Question Time of 14 April 1988 Senator Calvert asked me a question about mobility allowance. The Minister for Social Security has supplied the following additional information: The mobility allowance is payable to people aged 16 and over who, because of a disability, are unable to use public transport without substantial assistance and who are employed and/or undertaking vocational training for at least 20 hours a week. The allowance may continue for up to three months after employment or training has ceased. The allowance is a non-taxable payment, free of any means test, and is presently paid at the rate of $11 a week. The allowance was announced in the 1982-83 Budget and payment commenced from April 1983. The issue raised by Senator Calvert of additional costs faced by people with disabilities is being examined by the social security review and will be covered in the forthcoming paper on income support arrangements for people with disabilities. This paper will specifically address the issues of the additional costs incurred by people with disabilities and the range of barriers to work force participation faced by them. The paper will also give consideration to the needs of women with disabilities who are undertaking household duties and caring for children. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). Yesterday following Question Time the Minister claimed that I had misrepresented him twice in a Press release issued by me after having asked, and having received an answer concerning, a series of questions concerning the Antech report on the previous day. The Minister's allegation is false. The first misrepresentation claimed by the Minister was: I did not say I was unaware of the report. Earlier in his personal explanation the Minister said: Senator Calvert asked whether I was aware of the report, to which I answered yes. But Senator Button's answer of 18 April does not say this at all. In fact he said: I am not aware of the details of that matter. I will obtain an answer as quickly as I can for the honourable senator. That is all he said. Honourable senators can readily see who is misrepresenting whom. At no stage in his answer did Senator Button say yes, as he falsely claimed in his personal explanation. The second misrepresentation claimed by the Minister was: I was not further questioned by Senator Calvert. The charitable view of this is that the Minister misunderstood my Press release, as the question I had asked initially was whether he was aware of the report, and then I went on to ask four other questions relating to the report. It was in that context that my Press release said `in response to further questioning from Senator Calvert'. His response that he was not aware of the matter clearly related to all these subsequent questions as well as the first question. Senator Button has accused me of being grossly misleading and of grossly misrepresenting his answer. That is clearly not true. The Minister has sought to cause the manner in which I represent the people of Tasmania to be brought into disrepute. I can assure the Senate that I would not change any of my previous actions in regard to this matter. In fact, I take considerable comfort from the fact that I have succeeded in alerting this Government to the very real possibility of losing Antech to New Zealand interests as Tasmania lost the Antarctic museum and the secretariat for Antarctic Treaty nations to New Zealand. I will watch the Government's future actions with interest. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —by leave-In so far as I said yesterday that I was aware of the report, that was my recollection of what I had said. I apologise to Senator Calvert because I did not say that. I was, of course, aware of the report at all material times because I have had numerous representations about it that have nearly driven me mad. In so far as the second part of Senator Calvert's personal explanation is concerned, we could argue about what he meant until the cows come home, I suppose, but the fact of the matter is that he did say, `and in response to further questioning from Senator Calvert', which of course is an expression designed to give the impression that I was subject to a lengthy interrogation from Senator Calvert, he having established one point, going on to establish another and another. In my view, that is the only possible construction that can be put on the statement `in response to further questioning'. Senator Stone —It is one construction. Senator BUTTON —In his judicial role, I appreciate Senator Stone's comments! It seems to me that during Question Time in the Senate we have a question, and then we have supplementary questions. Had Senator Calvert asked me a supplementary question, of course I would not have said that. However, let me say that, if he disagrees with that, I accept his explanation; but I certainly find no other interpretation than the one I gave. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that at 8.30 a.m. today Senators Alston and Wood each submitted letters in accordance with standing order 64 proposing matters of public importance. To decide which letter should be submitted to the Senate, I determined the matter by ballot in the presence of the Opposition Whip, Senator Wood and the Clerk of the Senate. In accordance with the result of that procedure, I now read Senator Wood's letter: Dear Mr President, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The economic, cultural and environmental devastation caused by French colonialism and militarism in the Pacific region. Yours sincerely Robert Wood, Senator for NSW Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(3.12) —I raise this issue at this time because it is an important time in the Pacific. The French have recently decided to move the testing of their nuclear weapons from Mururoa to Fangataufa, a little further away from Mururoa. The reason for doing that is that Mururoa is breaking up, which we in the peace movement have been claiming for quite some time but which the French have been denying for quite some time. Also, the territorial elections in New Caledonia are being held this Sunday, 24 April, in conjunction with the first round of French presidential elections, which will see the Pons Statute, passed by the French Government last December, come into force. The Pons Statute is perceived by the Kanaks as tantamount to cultural genocide. The French took possession of New Caledonia in about 1853. They took the arable land, as colonisers mostly do, and pushed the Kanaks back into the mountains, and they imposed a repressive colonial system for 100 years or so. It was a system that was only slightly liberalised following the Second World War. In 1981 we saw the election of a French socialist government, elected on the promise of giving self-determination to the Kanaks. Social and judicial reforms were introduced in late 1981. In 1984, Edgard Pisani was brought in to negotiate a transitional period of regionalisation, and elections saw Kanaks win control of three out of four regions. However, in March 1986 the Chirac conservative Government was elected in France. The Chirac Government quickly stripped the power and reduced the funding of the regions and reversed land reforms that had seen land returned to traditional Kanak owners. Last September a referendum on independence was held. That referendum was boycotted by over 80 per cent of the Kanaks. It resulted in an overwhelming vote, by the white settlers who did vote, against independence, largely because Chirac and the French had threatened to withdraw funding to New Caledonia. It was economic blackmail: a vote for independence meant a vote for impoverishment. Not surprisingly, white settlers in New Caledonia voted for maintaining their links with France. Of those who did vote, some voted for independence who were not part of the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) and the independence movement in New Caledonia. The Kanaks are currently fighting against the implementation of the Pons Statute, which will no doubt be ratified by the French Parliament in December. The Pons Statute, if implemented, will mean, according to the Kanaks, that Kanaks will become French citizens, whether they want to or not, and that the traditional inheritance system will be abolished, thereby destroying the clan system. Land defined as `reservation', which was previously inalienable, will be able to be transferred or sold to anyone. The Kanak culture will no longer be recognised as a cultural identity. I would agree with the Kanaks and suggest that that is tantamount to cultural genocide. French colonialism in the Pacific has had, and continues to have, enormous implications for the region as a whole. The French treat all countries in the region with the traditional Gallic arrogance and disregard that we have come to expect. Demands have been made from all quarters for the French to cease nuclear testing and to respect the sovereignty of Pacific peoples, and they have all been studiously ignored, as the French have ignored the decisions of the International Court of Justice. The French have even been prepared to indulge in state sponsored and approved terrorism in the Pacific to achieve their aims. I do not have to remind anyone here of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior and the consequences of that. The attitude displayed by the French in relation to the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior is graphic evidence of their arrogance and their disregard for the sovereignty of nations in the Pacific region. The `Turenges', who are Alain Marfat and Dominique Pieur, or people involved in the bombing, were heralded as heroes in France; they were decorated. By contrast, New Zealand, where the bombing occurred, was made to pay dearly for having convicted them. I am not aware of any state having done so much for terrorists. Bans were placed on New Zealand lamb, the export of wool was seriously hampered and, finally, French pressure was exerted within the European Economic Community, which more than halved New Zealand butter exports. The treatment of New Zealand by the French backs up the claim made by President Mitterrand in 1985 that any foreign government challenging the French presence in the Pacific was to be considered as an `adversary'. The intensely nationalistic sentiment which underlies French foreign policy in the region is killing the peoples of its territories, both culturally and physically. Whilst French colonialism may in the past have brought some economic benefit to the Pacific islanders, the price that they have paid for whatever benefit they have received has been the destruction of their ways of life and a massive pollution of their environment. French political control of French Polynesia has been maintained only by the economic dependence that has been carefully maintained by the French over the years. Exports cover about 6 per cent of foreign purchases and Paris makes up the rest. This is the price that France has been prepared to pay in order to maintain its colonies as a nuclear testing ground. The price paid by the Polynesian peoples, however, has been much higher. Whilst many were recruited from outlying areas during the early construction phase of the testing site, unemployment is now high and Polynesians have now become slum dwellers relegated to the bottom of the socioeconomic pile. Although they constitute 70 per cent of the population, they have the highest unemployment rate and today it is largely the Chinese, French and mixed race community which benefits from the French presence. The independence movement in French Polynesia, not surprisingly, sees decolonisation as the only way out of its current situation. The impetus for the French to retain control is clearly the continuation of its nuclear testing program. I have stated all along that New Caledonia is just one example of superpower nuclear strategic interests trampling all over local self-determination, civil rights and democracy. The independence movement in New Caledonia is seen as a possible precedent for the decolonisation of other French colonies and the subsequent loss of France's force de frappe-as I understand it, meaning its ability to belt someone over the head. New Caledonia is presently gaining in strategic importance. Currently construction is under way for a new military base in Noumea Harbour to serve the growing fleet of French aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. Already the bulk of hotel accommodation in Noumea is taken up by troops and service personnel. The nuclear history of the Pacific is a result of its lack of independence and the greatest impediment to Pacific sovereignty is French and United States nuclear strategic interests France's nuclear presence demands colonialism. All pro-independence movements in French colonies take an anti-nuclear stance. In excess of 100 nuclear tests have been conducted at Mururoa, with devastating consequences to Pacific islanders and others in the region. The test site is honeycombed with test tunnels to the point that they threaten to collapse into each other. The latest reports of French intentions to shift the test site to Fangataufa is confirmation of the claims made over the years by opponents of French testing. These claims are not merely academic environmental issues; they have real consequences for people's health. Recent reports indicate that Polynesians are being treated secretly for cancer which is a result of years of nuclear testing in the Pacific. We do not have proper statistics on that because the French do not collect them. What knowledge there is about medical treatment of the people of the region is suppressed. The incidence of ciguatera, a disease of tropical fish, is many times higher where nuclear tests have taken place. Reports of fish poisoning amongst indigenous peoples have been ignored by the French, as have reports of any adverse consequences of French actions. What should be Australia's attitude towards all of this? In my view, it is vital that Australia keep the question of independence for New Caledonia on the agenda of the Decolonisation Committee at the United Nations, even if the French tell us, as the French Minister for Defence, Mr Andre Giraud, did recently, that it is none of our business and we should leave the French alone. Even Michael O'Connor, Director of the Australian Defence Association, hardly a radical body, said recently that `Australia had no option but independence for New Caledonia even if it means damaging relations with France'. He added the very obvious statement-obvious to all but the French, it seems-that colonialism was an anachronism. The Australian Government threw out the Libyan People's Bureau because of its so-called interference in the Pacific region. If our Government is to be consistent it should close the French Embassy and all French consulates in the country since French interference in the Pacific is far worse than anything the Libyans have done or threaten to do. I might add as a sideline that the French have been assisting the Libyans in developing Libyan nuclear technology. For many years South Pacific Forum governments have backed demands for Kanak independence and denounced French nuclear testing but the message has fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps the time has finally come to adopt a stronger position as it seems the French respond only to coercion or humiliation. Perhaps it is time to start closing French embassies. The point of view I am putting is hardly radical. The Canberra Times, in its editorial of 24 February this year, stated: One day France, notorious for grimly holding on to colonies, will have to grant New Caledonia independence and the sooner it does so the less will be the chance of a bloody civil war, such as have occurred in other former French possessions. So the feeling that Australia should promote the cause of independence for New Caledonia is strong and growing in this country. Unfortunately, the trend between Australia and France seems to be the other way, towards growing collusion in the harassment of independence activists by Australian airport authorities. On 17 March this year Yan Celene Uregei of the FLNKS was strip searched on a stopover in Brisbane. Trade union leader Louis Uregei was meticulously searched when he entered Australia in January. There seems to be a growing policy of harassment of Kanak activists when they pass through this country. Fortunately, within France a few individuals are voicing concerns about France's policies in the Pacific. Professor Jean Chesnaux said to the Canberra Times last year that the French attitude towards New Caledonia had more to do with France maintaining its image as a medium-size global power than any real interest in the territory itself. The response to claims from Australia that France should clean up its act, is that Australia should clean up its own backyard. I would agree with that wholeheartedly. I speak not from the point of view of someone who is being pious, noble and self-righteous about what the French are doing but as one who is conscious of our colonial history, our treatment of our indigenous people and our military strategies in the Pacific. I am one of those who are trying to encourage Australia to clean up its own backyard. I am one of those who are encouraging land rights for Aboriginal people, a fair deal for Australia's indigenous people. I am one of those who are encouraging greater responsibility in the Pacific region with regard to our trade and military intentions within the region. What I am advocating for France I advocate for the Australian Government, too-although I am not aware that the Australian Government goes around bombing peace activists in the region. I quote from an article in the Pacific Islands Monthly entitled `History Lessons': Even the FLNKS has entreated France to cover itself in glory, not ashes, by devising and implementing policies that reflect a true appreciation of other nations' bitter colonial heritage . . . Pacific nations, watching and hoping that the `Pacific century' will be ushered in by a gesture worthy of the republic that sent the words liberte, egalite, fraternite echoing around the world. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(3.32) —The Australian Government has had some very visible differences of opinion with France over particular South Pacific issues in recent years, most notably New Caledonia, nuclear testing and the Treaty of Rarotonga. I will come back to each of those in turn in a moment. But we simply do not accept the language or the approach embodied in the language in Senator Wood's motion and his presentation of it here today. We have had differences. I have had some very robust conversations with French Ministers and officials in recent times on the issues to which I have referred. Events such as the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior did not do much to improve France's relations with any country in the Pacific area. But, that said, we have to acknowledge that the whole question of our relationship with France and, more particularly, the implications of the French presence in the South Pacific region are very important and pretty complex, and raise issues which cannot simply be dealt with in the very brisk, and perhaps even cavalier, way in which they were dealt with by Senator Wood. There are many things to be said on the other side of the ledger. Australia does consider that France has a legitimate political, economic and cultural role to play in promoting stable development in the South Pacific and we have encouraged France to this end. Australia and France share the aim of promoting stability and a pro-Western orientation in the South Pacific. We recognise the valuable contribution that France has made in the past in the region and the constructive role it could play in the future, particularly in terms of providing development assistance and promoting balanced economic development and educational opportunities in its own territories-an area that President Mitterrand himself has acknowledged could be improved. We are grateful for the generous and very constructive role France has played in the celebration of our Australian Bicentenary. The establishment of the La Perouse Museum and the participation of France, through the City of Versailles, in the Bicentenary celebrations here in Canberra are reflections of the long historical and cultural association that the two countries have had and the possibilities that continue to exist in abundance for that relationship to be very pleasant and constructive. We are very pleased to see, in the context of the Bicentennial visit to this country of Monsieur Giraud, the re-establishment of a ministerial visits relationship and the resumption of a full scale diplomatic relationship that had been somewhat strained in recent times. We look forward to the resumption of a healthy dialogue on the variety of issues around which we have mutual concerns. Unquestionably, we have concerns about a number of specific issues. We have expressed concern that French policies on New Caledonia, nuclear testing and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, or the Treaty of Rarotonga, are contrary to the interests of the region and, in contrast to France's stated objectives, in fact risk undermining Western strategic interests in the region. I want to say now, for the record, a little about Australia's view on each of these issues. So far as New Caledonia is concerned, the Forty-Second General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) in December 1987 adopted a resolution which was put forward by the South Pacific forum member countries, including Australia, reaffirming the colonial status of New Caledonia and calling on France to cooperate with the United Nations. Australia's position on New Caledonia is that the interests of the territory and of regional stability require a peaceful, orderly transition to genuine self-determination and to a viable, long term political status which recognises the rights of the indigenous people, safeguards the rights of all other long term residents and retains the goodwill of France and its positive involvement in the Pacific. We expect that status to take the form of multi-racial independence. The people of New Caledonia have the inalienable right to self-determination and independence, as enshrined in UN resolutions 1514 and 1541. Successive South Pacific Forums have expressed firm support for a transition to an independent New Caledonia. Australia, in common with the other members of the South Pacific Forum, considers that a free and genuine act of self-determination in New Caledonia should be consistent with the universally accepted decolonisation practices and principles of the United Nations. We take the view, which we have expressed often enough, that the referendum held by France on 13 September last was inconsistent with that requirement. Australia supported reinscription of New Caledonia at the Forty-First General Assembly in 1986 as a means of ensuring that the territory's progress towards self-determination was regularly reviewed by the UN. Australia wishes to maintain a constructive dialogue with all parties involved in the New Caledonian issue, including the French Government. In terms of the regional elections which are scheduled to take place in just a few days' time, on 24 April, we have noted that the FLNKS has indicated that it will conduct what is described as a `forceful' boycott of both elections and that the French Minister for Overseas Territories and Departments, Bernard Pons, has indicated that the French Government has decided to increase substantially the level of its security forces in the territory during the election period. Against that background, we are concerned about the potential for further violence in the territory inherent in this situation, which has been explicitly foreshadowed by FLNKS spokesmen. We are concerned also about the implications of any such violence for the handling of New Caledonia by whatever administration emerges from the forthcoming French presidential elections. So we appeal to both the FLNKS and the French Government to exercise restraint. Australian and South Pacific regional opposition to French nuclear testing in the region is firm and longstanding. The common opposition of South Pacific countries to testing in the region has been embodied in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which came into force on 11 December 1986. There is no doubt that France is fully aware of Australia's very strong and continuing opposition to its testing program in the Pacific. We do not accept that French nuclear tests in the Pacific pose no long term environmental risks. In 1983, scientists from Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea visited Mururoa Atoll to investigate the effects of French testing, focusing particularly on the potential for long term environmental damage as well as possible shorter term damage. The team found that the structural integrity of part of the coral limestones forming the upper section of the atoll had been impaired. It noted that, while there was then no geological evidence of short term leakage, radioactive leakage could occur in a time period of 500 to 1,000 years. So there is concern, albeit of a long term nature, about the environmental implications of the test program. Concern has been expressed, and was expressed again here today by Senator Wood, that French nuclear testing in the Pacific has resulted in an increased incidence of cancer in the region. In fairness, on the only available evidence to us-again, that of the 1983 mission-it was found that radiation doses to the French Polynesian population were lower than world averages, and that cancer statistics data for the region did not support the suggestion of elevated rates for cancers which might be associated with excessive exposure to radioactivity. Notwithstanding how these environmental concerns balance out, the primary point that the Australian Government has always made, and that I make here again today, is that our opposition to French nuclear testing in the South Pacific is not based primarily on environmental concerns. We are overwhelmingly concerned about the argument that all nuclear tests by all states, in all environments, ought to be banned for all time. We have been in the very forefront of those calling in world forums and in every other possible environment for a comprehensive test ban treaty. France is the only nuclear weapons state which is testing outside a metropolitan territory, and it is doing so in a region whose peoples and governments oppose those tests. We unashamedly continue to express the very simple view-undeterred by the fact that the French describe it as a simplistic view-that, if the French tests are as environmentally safe as they claim, we see no reason why they should not be conducted in metropolitan France. In short-I see no need on this occasion for me to make a very long speech-the Australian Government feels that a number of specific aspects of French policy towards the South Pacific, and in particular its attitude towards decolonisation in New Caledonia and nuclear issues in the region, have damaged France's relations with the independent states of the South Pacific. This has deflected attention, perhaps understandably, from the positive aspects of French presence, including substantial bilateral and multilateral development assistance. French policies in the South Pacific have undoubtedly constituted a major complication in Australia's bilateral relations with France, but one that Australia has sought to keep contained within the overall relationship, which is, of course, as it has been for many years, close, longstanding and broad-ranging. Australia is not seeking to drive France from the region. Rather, we look to France to build on the positive aspects of its presence in the South Pacific and thereby to play a more constructive regional role. We welcome, as I said at the outset, the French initiative to end the year-long freeze on ministerial contacts, and we look forward to the resumption of a constructive and mature dialogue with France on issues of mutual interest. Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.43) —I wish to put the Opposition's position on the matter of public importance introduced by Senator Wood in these terms: The economic, and cultural and environmental devastation caused by French colonialism and militarism in the Pacific region. The Opposition thinks that it is a matter of regret that the matter of public importance has been couched in such extreme terms, and we would not be prepared to support it in those extreme terms. By contrast, I thought that the speech of Senator Wood was constructive. Obviously, the Press clip from his speech was the call to close French missions, in the belief on his part that France will respond only to coercion or humiliation. In my experience, that is the last thing that the French respond to. I was struck by the new attitude in this matter expressed by the Government today. The vitriolic attacks against the French, which we have so often experienced in this chamber, seem to have gone. I am not sure whether it is a reciprocal bicentennial gesture or whether there is some other motive, but it is a change to hear the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) talking in this chamber for the first time about pleasant and constructive relationships and using terminology of that nature. Senator Gareth Evans —A change for the better? Senator HILL —We on this side of the chamber welcome it. We think it is for the better. What is a matter of regret for us is that we feel that this Government has very little credibility to enter debates on the Pacific when one puts its record to the test. Certainly, when one examines that record-in many ways a record of neglect, a record that indicates an insensitivity and, at times, an ignorance of what is happening in the Pacific and of the very important changes that are occurring and continuing to occur in the evolution of the Pacific states-it does not give the Government a standing from which to debate this matter in a way that can command great respect within the region. Nevertheless, we welcome the change of attitude the Government has shown today. The Opposition's position on these matters has been consistent. We have been critical of aspects of the French presence in the Pacific region, but I think we can fairly say that we have always tried to be constructively critical, and have also tried to act on the premise of reality. It is a reality based on the fact that France is a Pacific power. It is here in the Pacific, it has been here for a long time through its colonial interests and in other ways and it is going to stay, it has no intention of leaving. It is easy to get up in this chamber, as have Government spokesmen and others on many previous occasions, to abuse the French and tell them that this is not their region and to get out of the Pacific. But, of course, to do so changes nothing. What we have found when it has been put to the test is that the superpowers stick together. The French presence in the Pacific in effect received an implied endorsement by the United States of America when it bowed to French pressure and was not prepared to become a party to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. I submit that it is much harder, but much more worthwhile, to attempt constructively to guide the French by example and by using our influence with other small Pacific states in a direction that would benefit the whole region. We agree with the Minister's statement today that France, through aid, trade, education support and in other ways, can make a worthwhile contribution to the region. The stumbling block, which we on this side of the chamber readily concede, has been its policy of nuclear testing in the Pacific. I suggest to the Senate that this policy of nuclear testing not only is related to its colonial attitudes to both French Polynesia and New Caledonia, but also is the greatest obstacle that we face looking to the decolonisation of those two territories. The fear of the French that, by giving an inch, they will put in jeopardy their testing program, which independent territories are obviously unlikely to host, leads to such irrational behaviour as the blowing up of the Greenpeace observer vessel in a New Zealand harbour, which appalled us all. It is impossible for us to understand how a civilised nation with the record of culture and learning of France could behave in such an uncivilised way. It all relates back, I suggest, to the fanatical determination of France to develop and maintain its own nuclear deterrent so that it would never again be humiliated by an oppressor. There is an awareness that to attempt to move the program back to metropolitan France would engender great opposition and therefore put that program in jeopardy. To the French-and I am talking of governments of all colours in France-the testing program of the Pacific therefore becomes paramount. The coalition parties are opposed to it. We argue against it in all forums. We are opposed to it not only on proliferation and environmental grounds but because of what we see as Australia's responsibility to support the small Pacific states on the issue. I suggest that we are the nearest thing they have to a major power to support them. Of course, many are geographically much closer to the testing sites than we are. If we attempt to understand how important the program is to the French, we realise how entrenched the issue is and that abuse simply will not help. That is, as I said, why I am pleased that the Government appears to have changed its approach to this issue. The problem of getting French nuclear tests out of the Pacific will, I suggest, ultimately be resolved by arms control agreements that give the French confidence that tests are no longer necessary. I add that the fact that even the Soviets and the United States realise that an intermediate-range nuclear forces agreement that included the French nuclear forces would fail-it would not have come into being-is a further demonstration of how difficult this challenge is. In building greater confidence between members of the alliance progress can perhaps be made to influence France that an independent nuclear deterrent is unnecessary. Perhaps as Europe becomes a closer political entity there may be greater influence from the European powers that France's independent deterrent is unnecessary. In the meantime, perhaps we should be making greater efforts in attempting to persuade France to look to alternative testing grounds. As you would know, Madam Acting Deputy President, it has been suggested from time to time that an agreement might be able to be reached with the United States for France to continue its testing in the Nevada Desert, where the tests could be more effectively monitored and not be subject to quite the same environmental dangers. Perhaps Australia could make greater efforts in this constructive direction which would be of benefit to the Pacific states. We on this side of the chamber are concerned about what is happening on Mururoa Atoll. The locals come to this Parliament and say that portions of the island have sunk. There has been a recent inquiry which has included an underwater examination. It should have reported by now but it has not. That gives us reason for concern. We note that in Paris it has been stated that the tests will be moved to another island. Yet we learn that this has not been said in French Polynesia. All of this gives us reason for concern as to what is the geological state of the atoll and what are the risks to the environment. We believe that it is through the medium of the environment that we are most likely to be able to influence superpower support in the form of persuasion of France either to move its testing or to desist from its testing. We would like to see the Government make greater use of this environmental tool. Perhaps if we had maintained better relations with France we could now be in a position again, through the South Pacific Forum or in some other way together with the Pacific states, to look for an opportunity to make a further geological inspection of the atoll. These are the constructive types of approaches that we think should be made to France which, although we readily admit the difficulty, would be more likely to result in some progress than policies of coercion and humiliation. I said that this nuclear issue will be incredibly difficult to resolve. I attempted to establish the link between it and the decolonisation process in New Caledonia and French Polynesia-a link which I am sure exists. The fact that it is going to be so difficult to resolve does not absolve Australia from exercising its responsibility, which it has exercised well in the past world-wide, to allow colonised states the opportunity for self-determination. We should continue to press that issue in relation to France's colonies in the Pacific. I experienced the vehemence of France in relation to this matter as a parliamentary adviser to the United Nations delegation in New York a couple of years ago when I supported, as a member of the Opposition, the reinscription of New Caledonia as a non-self-governing colony of France, which would have triggered the UN mechanism of acts of self-determination. I experienced the vehemence of France and its calling in of debts from countries around the world to influence those countries to vote against the motion. I also experienced how important Australia was to the small Pacific states and how much they relied upon us to take the running on this issue on their behalf. It will be an ongoing battle. Of course, France refused to accept the resolution of the UN; rather, it moved to its own form of referendum. The form of referendum has been criticised, and fairly so, because it was so limited in its options. The options which were put were simply to stay with France or to go for independence, and were promoted on the island as with France or without France. If it was to be without France there was to be no reassurance of economic or other support for New Caledonia in the future. In those circumstances it is not surprising that 60 per cent of the community voted to remain with France and that 40 per cent boycotted the referendum. One can go on in these debates for some time, but the approach that we have tried to take, in relation to both testing and decolonisation, is to influence France to take a course of action that will achieve both the goals we are seeking. Our opinion is that the approach that has been taken by this Government in the past has not been constructive and helpful towards that goal. It has achieved nothing worth while. We are pleased that we have witnessed today a different approach from the Government, an approach more consistent with the policies that we have adopted in the past. We hope that it might produce a more constructive result than we have experienced to date. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.58) —We are debating a matter of public importance submitted by Senator Wood in the following terms: The economic, cultural and environmental devastation caused by French colonialism and militarism in the Pacific region. It is a fact that France maintains colonies in the Pacific region and that it is one of the last of the European colonial powers to operate colonies anywhere in the world. The period of colonialism, however, is not finished. It is not finished in a number of ways because there are attempts by the countries that have power and influence in the world to re-establish colonialism as a mechanism of dealing with other countries. The colonialism in which France has primarily been involved in the South Pacific region is of the old kind-that is, the view taken by the European powers that they were not only superior to people in other parts of the world but they had a God-given destiny to tell other people how to run their lives, and that those countries should be run with a view to the enhancement and development of the European powers as they existed in the last century and at the beginning of this century. Of the European powers that were heavily involved in that particular exercise in the last century, the French have seemed the least able to disentangle themselves with any dignity and with any view towards the proper development of those countries after the colonial powers left. France is also involving itself in the newer phase of colonialism; that is, economic colonialism. In the Pacific region the United States is also heavily involved in this particular method of colonialism whereby those major powers impose on other countries their views, policies and approaches. If so-called independent countries fail to observe those policies or approaches, there will be economic ramifications, sometimes of the most horrendous kind, as we have seen, for example, in a number of the Micronesian and Melanesian countries. France is involved in both those areas of colonialism. Prior to the last election but one in metropolitan France when President Mitterrand came to power, there was a commitment, on behalf of the socialist government which came into power at that time, to independence for the French Pacific colonies. However, we have unfortunately seen so often the policies upon which socialist governments win power dissipate after the election on the grounds of scrabbling for the policies of their conservative opponents. In this particular case that most certainly occurred. The socialist Government, while in power, virtually did nothing to assist, and certainly did a great deal to hinder, the development of a truly independent nation in New Caledonia. The very crude exercise of swamping the peoples of New Caledonia by migration from metropolitan France was one among many exercises that were engaged in during that period. France has sought to extend her militarist operations in the Pacific, most notably with regard to nuclear testing, which I will come to shortly. There are other such operations; for example, the building of large facilities in New Caledonia and the extension of the runway on Hao near Mururoa, and the like. The swing to the right in French politics and the appointment of Jacques Chirac as Prime Minister in 1986 meant that the white settlers in New Caledonia found that they had reason to hope that independence certainly would not be coming about, despite the requests and demands of the indigenous Kanaks. Regrettably, all the policies of the present French Administration with regard to New Caledonia must now be viewed in the light of the looming presidential elections. As I have already mentioned, decolonisation has never been particularly popular in France and the method of decolonisation has been a particularly bloody one around the world. One would have hoped that those in metropolitan France would have understood something of this, but the attempt to extend themselves not only by extending, as it were, their own country but by extending their influence in the Pacific has been met with resistance from Australian governments of all political persuasions. I believe that France on its own has probably done more than any other state to damage the position of Western countries in this region. The two issues which have united the small and not so small independent nations in the Pacific are, first, this issue of independence of French colonies and, secondly, the nuclear issue. France has been the major target of concern by Polynesian and Melanesian states in the South Pacific, with Papua New Guinea sending troops to Vanuatu and then the Government there being attacked by mainly white rebels supported by France. I think it is important for Australia, in terms of its foreign affairs stance, to look very closely at the concerns and the desires of the nations of the region in which we live. Unfortunately, I think that we have seen all too often the neo-colonial view taken by Australia, with its massive European population, that as a white nation in the region we know better. Of course, it is not crudely put in that way; it is often covered up in a whole variety of approaches. Essentially, underneath that is the type of attitude that tends to come through. When one looks at Australia from the position of many of the independent countries in this region, one sees that they still have the feeling that Australia is merely acting at the behest of, and as a surrogate for, the European powers or the neo-colonial powers that now operate in this region, whether it be the United States or China, which recently emerged in this area, or the Soviet Union, which has displayed its attitude to operations in this region. The second issue that has been of major concern to the new and emerging independent countries in this region is nuclear weapons testing on Murouroa Atoll. Despite the protestations of all the members of the South Pacific Forum, including Australia and New Zealand, France has continued to operate in a way which basically is at variance with all the normal and accepted modes of relationships between countries. Whereas the United Kingdom and the United States ceased their testing in the Pacific in the 1950s and 1960s, France has continued at the rate of up to 12 tests a year. When Algeria became independent-again an exercise which reflects on the method of France of disengaging itself from its colonial past-the French were unable to use the Sahara to test nuclear warheads and they moved to the Pacific. From 1966 to 1975 they conducted 42 atmospheric tests and from 1975 to 1985 they conducted 83 underground tests. Some of these tests have been absolutely massive, one in May 1985 involving a 150-kilotonne warhead. I mentioned Algeria a moment ago. One would find it difficult in such a debate not to link the current hijack of the Kuwaiti airliner and the concern of the world for the innocent people who have been held hostage for so long. That the plane is sitting in Algeria reminds us, once again, of that institutionalised terrorism that France undertook in our region, and in fact, one of the very few examples of a country, so-called, that is interested in the promotion of any method that is available to us to combat terrorism in the world. Yet here we have a country condemned-thank God-by almost every country in the world, and certainly by all the countries in the European Parliament, for engaging in an exercise of state terrorism. Although the death toll or the potential for disaster was not comparable to the current hijack of the Kuwaiti airliner, I have no hesitation in linking the two, because they stem from the same idea, and intent, that attacks on innocent people are a method for the promotion of one's policies in some other part of the world. It is to the credit of all the other European nations that they saw fit to combine to condemn that act of state terrorism on behalf of France in our region. I too noted the change in tone that came from Senator Evans with regard to the attitude of this country to France, no doubt as a result of the sweetening that went on with the last French visit here not so long ago. This brings to mind the very real difficulty in conducting foreign affairs, that ever-existing tension between ethics and money; the problem that one has with regard to trade and the promotion of human rights and dignity around the world. I do not pretend that it is an easy or simple matter to engage in that particular equation. But at the moment one is mindful of the fact that there are agents of the French Government simply wandering around the Pacific handing out cheques which are not connected to any particular aid project or to any type of development within the region, but are solely an attempt to curry favour within that region. One cannot but be mindful also that in relation to Fiji a number of countries in the region, including Australia, attempted to take an in-principle stand on the destruction of the democratic institutions in that country. France was hotfooting it over there almost immediately, cheque in hand, to curry favour and buy itself in with the new dictators who had taken over in that country. Hardly a breath was taken before France was in there like a shot. In other words, the way France wants to do business in our region is not in the development of independent nations, is not with regard to the human rights that we must observe and is not in the development of a nuclear free zone, which France has failed to recognise and support, unlike so many other countries. The interests that France has in this region are purely for its own purposes in metropolitan France on the other side of the world. It has no other interest and no other reason for being in this region, and the sooner the French leave, and the sooner we are able to have more development of independent countries in this part of the world, the better this part of the world will be. Senator SCHACHT(South Australia)(4.12) —In speaking to this matter of public importance raised by Senator Wood, I say first of all that I think it is rather blunt. It is rather brief considering the complex problems of the French involvement in the South Pacific. However, generally, I do not think people could disagree with the sentiments behind the raising of this matter. We may all have different emphases about it. I think the contributions so far have been quite thoughtful but I have a couple of comments to make about those contributions. I do not agree with the assessment of Senator Hill that there was a dramatic change in the Australian Government's attitude towards French involvement in the South Pacific, just because Senator Evans gave a brief speech which did not contain dramatic histrionics and so on. The major content was that the commitments of the Government to the major differences of opinion with French involvement in the South Pacific are still there. I certainly support that. I have a particular interest in this area of the Pacific and I have spoken previously in the Senate about my disagreement with French involvement in it. I spoke in an adjournment debate in October last year about the restlessness and the disturbances that took place in Polynesia when a major industrial strike was broken up and put down by the heavy handed action of the French military police. I want to make it quite clear that I believe the involvement of French colonialism in the South Pacific is the major impediment to further political development on a sound and constructive basis in our region. I do not think there is any doubt that the interest of the so-called pro-West Australia is not being enhanced by the intransigence of the French in the South Pacific. In fact I would go so far as to say that those interests that we do not agree with, such as Libya, the Soviet Union and totalitarian countries in other parts of the world, are being enhanced by the intransigence of the French towards decolonisation and their continuing involvement in nuclear testing in the South Pacific. I believe our interests, the interests of the West, would be immeasurably enhanced if the French had a proper program to move towards independence for the French colonies in the South Pacific and a commitment to wind down and end as soon as possible the French nuclear testing program. French colonialism in this region I think has a number of features. First of all, the absurd claim that New Caledonia and Polynesia are part of France. When one talks to the French that is given as a justification for France's actions. A few weeks ago I was talking at a luncheon with some staff members who accompanied the French Defence Minister to Australia and they openly asserted that New Caledonia and Polynesia were a part of France. I said that that was like claiming that Bulgaria is a part of Australia, or Iceland is a part of Chile. It is just geographical nonsense. But they assert that and one cannot have a rational discussion because their assumption, as I say, is based on a geographical absurdity. That is the basis from which everything then flows in justification for not granting New Caledonia or Polynesia independence. But I think the worst aspect of the French presence is France's military presence. In both French colonies there is an overwhelming military presence. In Polynesia it is a basis for France preserving and carrying out its nuclear testing program. Papeete, the capital of Tahiti in Polynesia, is in many respects a military town. People visiting there see a large number of military bases and there is a military presence everywhere. That presence is quite marked, and it is a way of ensuring that any pro-independence, anti-nuclear testing sentiment by the local people is suppressed. It is the same in New Caledonia, where several thousand soldiers are brought in whenever there is a suggestion that the FLNKS or the Kanak people are making progress towards independence. The French military police and military forces are immediately beefed up and usually carry out their task in a very provocative way. We heard here earlier about French terrorism in the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour in New Zealand. I abhor that but I think we would have to agree that there have been even worse atrocities, in my view, by the French military in New Caledonia in the shooting of a number of Kanak independence supporters at Hienghene on the east coast of New Caledonia. Flowing from the military presence is the further manifestation of French colonialism; the economic domination that they have established. There is no doubt that they have established a system whereby the economies of both colonies are absolutely intertwined with French development and with the need to receive substantial grants of aid, money and infrastructure support from France. The threat always is that if the colonies become independent that will all be cut off and therefore the local people will not have the standard of living that they have been used to over the last 20-odd years of French development. In particular, this is used as a justification for the existing standard of living in Polynesia. I will return to that later on when concluding my remarks about how some Polynesian people see the economic domination of their country. Of course, this leads to a further manifestation of French colonialism which is intertwined-one goes with the other-and that is nuclear testing. We have French colonialism in the South Pacific because of France's need for nuclear testing, and we have nuclear testing because we have French colonialism. They are one and the same thing, and until one goes the other will not. We have to aim to get rid of both. I believe that the Labor Party, both in Opposition and in Government since 1983, has been unequivocal in its commitment to end nuclear testing and its support for independence for both those French colonies. A further variation of the French nuclear testing program is the absolute refusal of France to support the Treaty of Rarotonga-the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty-of which Australia was one of the sponsors. Again, I believe that the French should stand condemned for their refusal to support that Treaty. Of course, if they supported it, they would condemn their own nuclear testing program. There is in the French colonies, whether the French like it or not, an evergrowing and stronger independence movement which I believe all political parties in Australia should support without equivocation, as should the people of Australia. We have coming up in the next few days a rigged referendum-that is what it is-in New Caledonia. The FLNKS, on behalf of the Kanak people, has boycotted it, as it rightly should, because the qualifications to vote are loaded to ensure that the result can go only one way even if all the Kanak people vote. The Australian Government has led the way by showing great leadership. I thank Senator Macklin and others for pointing out that our support for the inscription of New Caledonia on the United Nations decolonisation committee has been an excellent move. It has certainly created a leadership role for Australia, and one that we should welcome and continue. The French, irrespective of the coming presidential election, have to face the fact that sooner or later, unless they grant independence in New Caledonia, there will be further violence in that country. That would be abhorred by us all. But remember that the violence will come because of the intransigence of the French, not the other way round. All the violence that has gone on there so far is a result of the attitude of the caledoche, the white settlers, and the French administration. The people killed so far have been Kanaks, not the white settlers. The white settlers have all the guns, all the arms; the Kanaks do not. So the violence is against the Kanak people in their own homeland. There have been a number of developments in Polynesia in the last three months which should be of encouragement to us all. Gaston Flosse's conservative territorial Government collapsed in December of last year, and for the first time independence supporters who are also opposed to nuclear testing are part of a new, vigorous territorial government. That should be some encouragement, as I say, to us all. We in Australia should make every effort to show our support for that new territorial government, which is under considerable pressure from conservative forces both in France and, still, in Polynesia. The final point we should never forget is that the Australian people have always been opposed to colonial rule. Going right back to the 1940s, the Chifley Government supported the independence of Indonesia. The Australian Labor Party in particular and Labor governments have a long tradition, of which I think we can be proud, of supporting the right of people to free self-determination. We should not in any way be backward in supporting the continuing development of independence in the two French colonies of New Caledonia and Polynesia. Once those colonies become independent, as I am sure they will, we will have a region in the South Pacific in which we will play a role not as a dominating force but as a nation equal with the independent countries that can be an example to other areas of the world that there are democratic governments in this area, despite the problems in Fiji, and that it is an area where colonialism has been removed and where the culture of the Polynesian and Melanesian people can survive and thrive. In conclusion, I wish to quote from a book written by Bengt and Marie-Therese Danielson, called Poison Reign. It is the history of colonialism in Polynesia, and I recommend it to anybody interested in these issues. It contains a quote from a speech made by Jacqui Drollet, the leader of the Ia Mana Te Nuhaa Party in Polynesia, supporting independence and the end of nuclear testing. In that speech, made to a public rally in February 1984-though it is over four years ago the remarks are still appropriate-she gave us, more eloquently than I could ever hope to give it, an understanding of the situation in Polynesia. She said: The Polynesian land, our fenua maohi, has been defiled by man's apocalyptic folly, and not only has Mururoa been polluted by the fallout engendered by this monstrous undertaking, but the whole social, economic and cultural fabric of our Polynesian society has at the same time been destroyed. We have heard much about the wonderful prosperity and progress allegedly resulting from this industry of death. But if we look back on what has happened during the past twenty years, we must ask these questions: Does it really represent progress to have all these vast slums here in Tahiti, inhabited by Polynesian immigrants from the other islands? And what has happened to the 10 000 Polynesians employed on all sorts of heavy construction work by the CEP during the first years? Today 7 700 of them have been laid off and are unemployed. And those Polynesians who were able to buy a car in the early days, do they still have it today? And the Polynesians who sold their land in the CEP heydays, are they wealthier today? She ended on this sad note: Our land has changed hands, we have sold it for a dream. Our power of decision has been taken from us, and all we have got in exchange are a few social welfare benefits. Our society has become tough, cruel, merciless, and we are dominated by a new desire to make individual profits. To continue along this road is sheer nuclear prostitution. I believe that those remarks from Jacqui Drollet best sum up why we as Australians should continue to support the independence movements in both New Caledonia and French Polynesia, and support the ending of French nuclear testing. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(4.27) —I wish to speak against this matter of public importance and to give support to my colleague Senator Hill, who added some constructive comments to the argument against it. The matter of public importance before the Senate today fails to understand the changing scene of the South Pacific and the fact that within that scene France is an ally and recognises itself as a member of the Western alliance. Although it has its own command structure and undertakes its own military manoeuvres, France nevertheless sees itself as an ally and as part of the Western alliance. In that context, so does Australia. Our relationship with France has, I admit, often been rocky, as has been pointed out by speakers from both sides of the House this afternoon. It has been a less than perfect relationship. More times than not it is France that has not met its responsibilities. All of the speakers this afternoon have acknowledged and would recognise that there is a list of actions which we would condemn outright, but at the end of the day France is Australia's ally. In many ways France has an historic link with Australia that rivals many of our other Western allies. It is worthy to note, as we prepare for Anzac Day next Monday, an Anzac Day in our bicentennial year, that it was in the Great War, World War I, that the Australian Diggers went over to France and saved that country. That is something that the French recognise as a very important part of their history. The honourable senator who submitted this matter of public importance and those who have spoken in favour of it would show far more wisdom by recognising the historic bond that Australia has with France and using that bond to influence the French in the Pacific region, particularly in regard to nuclear testing. It is true that the South Pacific is a region that is going through significant changes, both in its domestic politics and in its international relations. The two most dramatic events of late, of course, have involved Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Further, we have seen the demise of the longstanding and very important ANZUS Treaty. The dismantling of this Treaty quickly followed the election of the Lange Government in New Zealand. It is interesting and worthy to note that back in 1984 Moscow radio said that the Lange victory could set off a chain reaction leading to the collapse of the ANZUS bloc. That statement turned out to be hauntingly correct. Since the collapse of ANZUS we have had the predictable encroachment of the Soviet Union with its long term designs in the region. I say `predictable' in the sense of the famous Vladivostok speech by Mr Gorbachev, in which he clearly emphasised the growing role of the Soviet Union in the South Pacific. This statement since 1985 has led to a very strong commercial push by the Soviets, which no-one should doubt will be followed by a much stronger military push. Evidence of this is apparent already in the growing importance of Cam Ranh Bay to Soviet strategic plans for the Pacific. It is known that the main power to be won in the Pacific is naval power. The importance of Cam Ranh Bay and Vietnam itself upon the South Pacific nations should not be underestimated. The precedent has been set. The pattern is quite clear. It has already been tried and has been relatively successful in the Indian Ocean. Today it is widely reported that the Soviets have a large military presence in the Seychelles. The Seychelles had originally set up communication with the Soviet Union by way of trade and aid. This country has many features similar to those of the South Pacific. Today it is Soviet dominated and Soviet troops are present on the island, so the comparison between the Indian and Pacific oceans is quite real. I refer to a paper by Mr Dibb, who is currently employed as a consultant to the Minister for Defence. The paper highlights the comparison I have just made: Thus far, the co-ordinated policies of the ANZUS partners and the countries of the South Pacific Forum have been successful in denying the Soviet Union a major political foothold in the region. They are anxious to avoid a situation arising in the South-West Pacific comparable to that in the Indian Ocean where Soviet offers of aid to the fishing industry and visits by hydrographic vessels . . . have developed into port calls by warships. Further to this, it is known that Libya continues to run a large network throughout the South Pacific region, regardless of the expulsion of the People's Bureau from Canberra last year. Colonel Gaddafi's assistance spreads to certain independence movements in the region. It is doubtful that these particular so-called independence movements could be genuine about proper democratic and parliamentary reforms for all the people of the region, if they are willing to take their training from Libya and the madman, Colonel Gaddafi. It is then in Australia's interest to recognise its strongest allies. That is what the proposer of the matter must come to grips with-firstly, that the Soviet Union is not Australia's ally, whereas France and its people are. France, like all of the Western alliance countries, is contributing to our interests, and indeed to the existence of the Western alliance. Why have Senator Wood and other honourable senators who have contributed to this matter of public importance debate not recognised the role of France in the Persian Gulf and its importance in that region? What would be the stance of those who speak in favour of this matter of public importance when addressing the war in Chad, a war where France stepped in to protect that country from invasion by Libya? Chad is a country with which France has had traditional ties. Would they condemn France for its protection of the people of Chad, and would they condemn France for the same action in the South Pacific if the same circumstances arose with respect to Libya? If they would condemn France for this I can only say that they would support every murderous act that Libya has ever perpetrated. What is needed is a much broader view of the politics and international relationships of this area, or we will simply see the intrusion of the Soviet Union and Libya, countries which stand condemned as the most destructive to world peace today. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(4.36) —I rise to support this matter of public importance. I think it is very urgent that we look at the South Pacific and that we do, as Senator McGauran suggested, get international politics into perspective in this region. I challenge some of the remarks just made by Senator McGauran about the intrusion of the Soviet Union, for example, into the Pacific region. In fact, Soviet activity in the region has decreased, as evidenced in the following article about Mr Hayden in the Melbourne Herald. `. . . the level of Soviet activity in the Pacific Ocean area has gone down markedly in the past 12 months.' He said Soviet naval deployment had gone down `by something like 50 per cent' . . . Mr Hayden emphasised also that the Soviets maintained only a defensive naval presence in the north-west Pacific while the US had a vastly superior `attack' capability. I do not want to go into the argument of comparing the capacity of the Soviets in the Pacific with that of the Americans. I think it is very clear that the American Navy has an enormous superiority when compared with the Soviets. Of course it must be acknowledged that the Soviet Union has taken up a base at Cam Ranh Bay. That is a concern, and I do not deny that, but let us not get it out of perspective, and let us not get the fishing agreements with Kiribati and Vanuatu out of perspective. The Soviets have been merely paying for the fish that American tuna boats have been stealing from these very small South Pacific nations for a number of years. So, as Senator McGauran suggested, we need to look at it in perspective. I do not think that we need to build up a lot of hysteria about the Soviet presence in the South Pacific. We need to acknowledge that it is there and we need to keep an eye on what is going on, but today we are debating the French colonisation, destabilisation and nuclear policies in the Pacific, which are of much greater importance to the people of the region than what the Soviet Union may be up to. In face, the Kiste and Herr report, commissioned by the American State Department in 1984, came out with exactly this finding. I repeat that this was the United States Government and its own commission. The commission talked to numerous people in the South Pacific region in an attempt to assess the potential for Soviet penetration of South Pacific islands. The commission discovered, to its own surprise and dismay, that the French and Americans were seen as the problem-not the Soviets-as far as the South Pacific island states were concerned. I recommend that Senator McGauran have a good look at the Kiste and Herr report of 1984, which is the US Government's own document-a document which dobs it in along with the French as the problem in the region rather than the Soviet Union. We need to look at the essence of the French position in the Pacific, which is basically that its territories there are part of France, that it needs Mururoa to test its nuclear weapons, which are necessary for the defence of France-which is questionable in itself-and that, if the people of the region want independence and enough vote in favour of it, France will leave the area. That is debatable. It is most necessary to examine the French position. The commander of the French naval forces in the Pacific, Admiral Pierre Thireaut, spoke at the Red Orchestra Conference in Melbourne on 21 March this year. The theme of that conference was `Soviet ambitions in the Pacific: how Australia, the US and their allies should respond'. It was organised by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). Admiral Thireaut said that the Soviet Union had signed the Treaty of Rarotonga to drive a wedge between allies in the Pacific. He added that it was trying to weaken the French nuclear deterrent, which depended on continued testing in the Pacific. In other words, according to the French, East-West issues are more important than North-South issues or the priorities of the indigenous people of the South Pacific. Although Admiral Thireaut confirmed that France would have a major role in Pacific affairs but would leave its Pacific territories at once if a majority of people said in a democratic vote that they wanted independence, this ignores the fact that the Kanaks are a minority in their own land and that French Polynesia has been made a nuclear colony-in effect, economically dependent upon the test program since it was moved there in 1963, and since testing began in 1966. It seems that the superpowers, with France included, consider their own interests in the Pacific much more important than the interests of the indigenous peoples of the region, once again-and I think Australia is part of the problem to a certain degree-looking at the Pacific through East-West eyes rather than looking at the needs of the local people, whose pleas have been for economic independence. It seems very tragic that France has not learnt lessons from its former colonial mistakes in Algeria and Indo-China. Those countries were no more part of France than New Caledonia and Tahiti are, and France does not belong in the Pacific, either. The difference is that, because the islands are small and distant, it is harder for them to oppose the power of France, except with regional support-and that of course is what Australia should be giving. It is also interesting to note that at the Red Orchestra Conference both Sir Julius Chan and Sir Ewan Jamieson, whilst saying that they had no objections to the French tests, subtly warned the conference that the French presence in the South Pacific was destabilising the region, with Sir Ewan hinting that, if possible, other alternatives for a test site should be explored, like the United States of America's underground test site in Nevada. Those comments are from people who are not necessarily opposing French colonialism but who see that the continued French presence there is destabilising, largely because of the testing programs. The French motivation for being in the Pacific is largely to form a commercial base for themselves in the fast expanding Pacific economic basin. It has been acknowledged that the Pacific area, the Pacific Rim countries in particular, is the fastest growing economic region in the world, and even these tiny nations are seen as being important as part of that process. It is important to note that France on its own is not one of the world's largest countries, either in area or in terms of its economy, but with the 200-mile exclusive economic zone around its French Pacific island territories and other islands, in area it becomes the second largest country in the world. The French also consider the seabed mining potential in the South Pacific very important. So, they do see economic and political gains by having such a large area of the Pacific under control. On 24 April, coming up soon and coinciding with the first round of the presidential elections in France, an election will take place in New Caledonia to ratify a new law already passed by the French Legislative Assembly. This is known in New Caledonia as the Pons law. It will effectively legislate the Kanak nation out of existence. Once implemented this law will, firstly, eliminate the status of Kanaks as indigenous people and redefine them as citizens of France. This will permanently deprive them of the right to independence. Secondly, it will abolish the traditional rights of Kanaks to their land by destroying the traditional land inheritance system. Thirdly, it will reclassify land presently defined as `reservations' into freehold title, thus enabling Kanak lands to be sold to anyone. Finally, it will abolish the legitimacy of Kanak culture under French law. The Kanaki people are planning to boycott the French presidential elections as well as the local territorial elections and this Pons referendum. The Minister for Overseas Territories, Monsieur Bernard Pons, has ordered eight more squadrons of gendarmes to New Caledonia, taking the total to nearly 2,000-the largest number ever deployed there. When that 2,000 is added to the troops, the foreign legionnaires, the marines, the republican security companies, riot squads and other police already on the island, they will take the combined strength to about 8,500 men, or one for every seven Kanaks-that is, one to every two or three adult males. That is an enormous amount of militarisation in New Caledonia in preparation for this election. The French seem to be determined to provoke the Kanaks into violence. This massive police and military presence will see to that. The population in New Caledonia is now 37.1 per cent French; that is, there are 20,000 metropolitan French people there-the civil servants and so on who are out there for a short term of duty and who return to France. There are 36,000 Caldoche people there-permanent white settlers, some of whom have come from other former French colonial territories in Algeria and Indo-China. There are also other groups, including the migrant workers brought in to work in the nickel mines, that is, Indonesians, Vanuatuans, Tahitians, Vietnamese, and other people-totalling 29,000 people. They are also pro-French because their jobs as migrant workers depend on the French presence remaining. The situation now is that the Kanak people are now outnumbered in their own country-very purposefully. This has been a policy of the French, and relates to their strategy of nomadisation, which they have copied from Algeria and Indo-China; it was not very successful there, and I hope that it will not be successful in New Caledonia, either. What they have managed to do very successfully is to outnumber the Kanaki people in their own region, which probably means that they will get the vote to go the way they want it to. Then they can sit back and say, `Well, we gave the local people an opportunity to vote against the French presence there and they did not take the opportunity'. Under the kind of threat of repression that the people there are suffering, it will be little wonder. I now want to talk a little bit about the French-Australian rapprochement that has been happening lately, and this is since Australia decided to resume uranium sales to France. It has been happening as part of the cheque book diplomacy that has occurred throughout the Pacific in the wake of the Fiji coup. I think it is quite a disgrace that the Minister of Defence, a Monsieur Andre Giraud, should use the opportunity of a bicentennial gift to Australia to tell Australia to mind its own business on the issues of New Caledonia and nuclear testing in the South Pacific. It is only the French who believe this ridiculous myth that Tahiti and Kanaki are part of France. The comments made in the Press give an indication of how much this rapprochement has been going on. `Canberra and Paris kiss and make up' is the headline of an article in the Canberra Times of 25 February this year. Incidentally, France has made greater gifts than has any other country to the bicentennial celebrations. It has donated $25m for 39 projects, more than any other country, and we have said thank you very much. So, Australia is being bought off like many of the other countries in the South Pacific. Senator Knowles —That's very cynical. Senator VALLENTINE —Maybe it is very cynical, but I think it is rather distressing that we have these envoys of the French Government coming out here for the bicentennial telling Australia to mind its own business, that it is no business of Australia to be concerned with New Caledonia. We have also had Admiral Thireaut addressing the IPA seminar in Melbourne and then going on to a round of meetings with defence chiefs and planners during his Australian visit, as a guest of the Chief of Naval Staff, defending French nuclear tests in the Pacific, criticising Australia's disarmament policies and telling us to keep our noses clear of our neighbour's interest in New Caledonia. To add insult to injury, the glossy publication handed out for the Canberra fireworks display in March-also paid for by the French Government as its Bicentenary gift-contained a full page advertisement for the giant French company, Cogema, a subsidiary of the government-owned Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique, which was responsible for the commercialisation of the nuclear fuel chain, from mining to reprocessing and packaging of wastes. It was as pretty a picture as one could produce of yellowcake. How insensitive it was of the French to hand out such a glossy publication, considering the current domestic dispute on Australian uranium sales to France, in particular. Senator Short —That is only an internal dispute amongst the Left. Senator VALLENTINE —There is a huge dispute going on in this country about that, and I think that it was very insensitive of the French to have a big picture of their wonderful yellowcake when they know that this is a sensitive issue in Australia. We now need to look at the question of French Polynesia, the nuclear colony. It has a population of 180,000 people, scattered over an area as large as Europe. This means that France controls some eight million square kilometres of the Pacific region. It has 3,000 scientists and troops on Mururoa. As well as the testing program, tourists to the region bring in $240m annually. About 20,000 families are directly or indirectly dependent for their livelihood on the military in Tahiti. No income tax is paid by these people, and France pumps about $1.2 billion a year to prop up the budget. Apart from the nuclear testing facility and the tourists, there is merely a little fishing and some copra production. In this region there is an economic dependence on the French military and on the nuclear testing program. Three thousand poorly educated young people come onto the labour market each year. They flow in from the islands to Papeete making for a huge load of unemployed people and causing the social unrest that goes with that. That has occurred in the last 20 years since the nuclear program began operation. The French strategy in the Pacific is largely the responsibility of Gaston Flosse. His high profile Pacific diplomacy has been very evident in the last year or two. He has presided over an open door policy under which Pacific leaders are invited to visit Mururoa to see how safe it is and many people who have spoken in the debate-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(4.51) —I also rise to speak in support of Senator Wood's proposal for discussion: The economic, cultural and environmental devastation caused by French colonialism and militarism in the Pacific region. The French came to the Pacific in the wake of the Spaniards, Portuguese, English and Dutch. United States foreign policy was formed in the years following World War II when France was perceived as a colonial ally and given aid to maintain its colonial empire. This United States perception led inexorably to the war in French Indo-China; that is, the Vietnam war. In an effort to keep up with the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in their aggressive nuclear weapon programs, in 1954 France founded the Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique, the CEA, to develop its own nuclear weapons. The Sahara Desert of Algeria in northern Africa was chosen as the first atomic test site. In 1960 the first atmospheric test was carried out in the Sahara and subsequently three more atmospheric and 13 underground tests were conducted before two events precipitated a move to the South Pacific. The first was a miscalculation of weather conditions which carried radioactive fallout from one of the tests across the Mediterranean to Europe. The second was Algeria's hard-won independence from France in 1962. This resulted in the `Pieds Noir' returning to France and France losing its site for its nuclear testing program. In the early 1960s American tests in the Pacific were a regular occurrence, including tests of huge thermonuclear weapons. The French Government, meanwhile, constructed a modern airport in Tahiti and the then French Foreign Minister, Louis Jacquinot, assured the people of French Polynesia: `No nuclear tests will ever be made by France in the Pacific Ocean'. However, in January 1963 President de Gaulle told a delegation of Polynesian leaders that Mururoa Atoll had been chosen for the French nuclear test programs. In a letter to John Teariki, the then leader of the French Polynesian Territorial Assembly, Dr Albert Schweitzer said: Long before I received your letter I was worried about the fate of the Polynesian people . . . Those who claim that these tests are harmless are liars. Tests started in 1966 in the atmosphere and there were 44 atmospheric tests until 1974. The World Court urged France to discontinue the tests in response to a petition from Australia, New Zealand and Fiji, but France typically refused to recognise the Court's jurisdiction. Testing finally went underground in 1975 and well over a hundred tests have taken place at Mururoa. According to French journalists quoted in the Age nearly three years ago, Mururoa: . . . is so full of cracks and holes it resembles a cheese, raising the danger of leakage of radioactive waste into the ocean . . . This was denied furiously by the French administration until finally, in March of this year, there was a grudging admission that the whole testing program might be moved to Fangataufa as Mururoa is becoming unsafe. The United States tolerates France in the Pacific. The colonial high commissioners are the agents of a government which is a de facto member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The spreading slums of Papeete and Faare are, like the slums of the Marshall Islands, part of the price of so-called progress. Let us come to the people of the islands. Since 1963, when the first plans to test nuclear weapons in the Pacific by France were announced by de Gaulle, the representatives of the Territorial Assembly elected by the Polynesian people have petitioned consistently but unsuccessfully to successive French governments to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific. As mentioned by Senator Vallentine, these people, the Kanaki, are now in an even worse situation. Under the French Constitution each overseas territory is governed by a statute issued by the French Government. The Kanaki have had three different statutes over the past three years. In the latest one, which has been put out by M. Bernard Pons, the French Minister for Overseas Territories, he has overruled the French Constitution through the Pons statute in order to abolish the official recognition of the clan, which is the backbone of the Kanak society. When his statute is implemented the Kanaki, as indigenous people, will become citizens of France whether they want to or not. In other words, the Pons statute will effectively destroy the Kanaks' existence. In conclusion, French occupied Polynesia has very limited autonomy but French presidents from De Gaulle onwards have made a point of assuring their electors that France has no intention of leaving the Pacific: that indeed France and French occupied Polynesia are one country, as Senator Schacht mentioned earlier. French pride and French potency seem to be motives as strong as French industry and commerce, though from our Australian experience at Newcastle, New South Wales, where a French consortium threatened to pollute Newcastle's water supply and the oyster beds with flourine and cyanide; in Tasmania where a French consortium crushed residents' opposition to install a heavily polluting smelter in a residential area; in Western Australia where yet another giant French conglomerate is threatening to transport radioactive materials through residential areas and dump them in an area of ecological fragility, we can expect little sensitivity from overseas French commercial operators. The nations of the Pacific, including Australia, cannot be free and independent until they are nuclear free and we cannot be nuclear free until we are independent. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The discussion on the matter of public importance is concluded. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I present the fifth report of 1988 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 and the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1988. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 5, dated 20 April 1988. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources) —I seek leave to make a statement relating to Australian nuclear safeguards. I also seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the statement. Leave granted. Senator COOK —The West German magazine Der Spiegel alleged, in its editions of 18 January, 15 and 22 February 1988, that the European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom, had circumvented conditions placed on Australian origin nuclear material by the Australia-Euratom safeguards agreement. Similar allegations were made concerning Canadian and United States origin nuclear material. These allegations were repeated by two members of the European Parliament, Mrs von Blottnitz and Mr Staes. Mrs von Blottnitz has written a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the allegations. The allegations have also been echoed by Senators Sanders, Mr Peter Milton and other Australian parliamentarians and have appeared in the Australian media. The Government takes a serious view of any allegation concerning possible breaches of Australia's nuclear safeguards agreements. Consequently, we have conducted a thorough examination of the allegations which have been made: When the first Der Spiegel articles appeared, initial inquiries were directed to Euratom through our embassy in Brussels. These were followed up by a number of specific questions relating to the allegations. The Government has sought the views of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and has also consulted the authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), Austria, Canada and the United States (US). The Australian Safeguards Office (ASO), which is the Australian Government body responsible for accounting for Australian nuclear material overseas, has been closely involved in the investigations. The Government has obtained from Der Spiegel and the European Parliament copies of the exchanges of correspondence between Euratom and the German nuclear firm, Nukem, on which the allegations of mishandling of Australian uranium are based. More recently, Senator Sanders has provided copies of two documents on which Der Spiegel based some of its allegations. These are internal working documents from the Euratom Supply Agency, which is Euratom's uranium buying agency. The Supply Agency should not be confused with the Euratom Safeguards Directorate which is the body responsible for safeguards within the European Community. In essence, the allegations which have been made, insofar as they relate to Australian uranium, are as follows: Euratom has `swapped flags', denoting exchange of nuclear safeguards obligations, between quantities of Australian nuclear material and material of different national origin. Euratom set out with Nukem, the German nuclear firm, to circumvent safeguards controls on Australian nuclear material, in particular the need to obtain Australian consent for enrichment above 20 per cent. The Australian Government is opposed to the concept of `changing labels' and has a system of `special approvals' which has not been complied with. Euratom is `laundering' South African uranium by swapping labels. Euratom has swapped Australian nuclear material with `phantom' material, that is, material which no longer existed, or with nuclear `waste'. In part, these allegations appear to flow from a lack of understanding of the complexities of international trade in nuclear material, confusion between internal and international flag swaps and, in particular, failure to understand the equivalence principle used in nuclear materials accounting. The equivalence principle ensures that at all times there is a known quantity of nuclear material identified as being subject to Australian safeguards obligations. This principle is integral to the operation of both Australia's network of bilateral nuclear safeguards agreements and the system of international safeguards applied by the IAEA. Australia's safeguards agreements are the strictest in the world. They provide for the most stringent controls to ensure that Australian obligated uranium is used only for peaceful-that is, non-weapons-and non-explosive purposes. Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements-eleven of which are in force with the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Philippines, Finland, Sweden, Euratom and IAEA-are binding international treaties and have been tabled in Parliament. They are public documents. The dates on which these agreements entered into force are set out in a table which I will table in due course. The physical and chemical processes involved in making nuclear reactor fuel on a commercial scale involve very large plants and necessitate the comingling of material from several sources. In the first stage uranium oxide, or yellowcake, which is a dense powder, is converted to a gaseous form known as uranium hexafluoride. In the next stage-enrichment-the content of the isotope U235, which is the isotope of uranium which enables nuclear fission to take place, is increased from its naturally occurring level of 0.7 per cent to about 3 per cent. This process typically involves cycling the gas several thousand times through centrifuges or diffusion barriers. In the third stage, the gas is chemically processed to produce uranium dioxide, a powder which is compacted into fuel pellets which are loaded into tubes. A collection of tubes is then assembled into a fuel element. Nuclear material can undergo these various processing operations at plants in a number of different countries subject to the safeguards obligations which are attached to the material involved. These processes are described schematically in a diagram, which also will be tabled. Continued identification of individual atoms is not possible in commercial operations of this type. Consequently, at the conclusion of each processing stage, it becomes necessary to allocate safeguards obligations to the product material in strict proportion to the input from each source. The basis of the measure of equivalence is the number of atoms of U235. In this way material is assigned as being of particular national origin and the safeguards obligations that each exporting country requires are applied to that material. In Australia's case this material becomes known as Australian origin nuclear material, or AONM. In other words, AONM is the label attached to nuclear material which is subject to Australian safeguards obligations. From the point of view of international safeguards, the important thing is that a quantity of nuclear material equivalent to the amount originating in an exporting country remains subject to the safeguards obligations imposed by that country. As the nuclear material passes through the nuclear fuel cycle, an amount equivalent to the quantity of material originally exported will remain subject to the safeguards of the exporting country. That remains the situation, even though the volume of the material and its chemical composition will change according to the type of process to which the material is subjected. So, for every 50 tonnes of Australian material that enters the European system the equivalent of that 50 tonnes always carries safeguards obligations to Australia. These safeguards obligations ensure that the AONM is locked into the civil program and cannot be diverted from peaceful use without being detected. The equivalence principle recognises that the individual atoms are indistinguishable from each other. A simple analogy would be that of a bank depositor who maintains control over a given sum of money. The depositor does not expect to withdraw precisely the same banknotes that were deposited with the bank, but only a sum of money equivalent to the amount deposited. In the same way, Australia does not seek to identify the individual atoms in uranium which is exported to a given country. This is consistent with international practice. But Australia does require, and obtain, an accounting for a quantity of nuclear material which is equivalent to the amount of uranium exported. At each stage of the processing chain an equivalent amount is identified as being subject to Australian safeguards obligations. No uranium exporting country applies safeguards on the basis of tracking individual atoms of material, nor could it. Neither does the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements, all of which provide for the use of the principle of equivalence, our bilateral partners enter into international legal commitments concerning the use of AONM subject to the agreements. The agreements provide that such AONM shall not be used for, or diverted to, the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, research on or development of such weapons or devices, or be used for any military purpose. Compliance with these provisions is ensured by a system of safeguards administered by the Australian Safeguards Office, the safeguards office of the country or group of countries concerned, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency through its inspections. Under the administrative arrangements pursuant to Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements, a system of accounting and reporting has been established through which the Australian Safeguards Office is informed of the amounts of AONM, in its various forms, by bilateral treaty partner countries. This information provides the basis for reconciliation of accounts kept by the ASO with those kept by its counterpart organisations. The ASO conducts regular visits to our bilateral partner countries for this purpose and includes in its annual reports the results of these visits. These accounting procedures provide assurance that nuclear material subject to the agreement remains in exclusively peaceful use. Further assurances are provided by the safeguards which the IAEA applies. The IAEA carries out inspections, takes samples, makes measurements and carries out camera surveillance to detect any diversion of nuclear material from peaceful uses. The results of the IAEA inspections are reported each year to member states. They indicate that, in a quarter of a century of Agency operations, there has been no diversion of safeguarded nuclear material from peaceful use. In the case of the Australia-Euratom Safeguards Agreement, to which the abovementioned allegations refer, our bilateral partner is of course a group of countries: the members of the European Community. The agreement treats the Community as a single entity and the Community's safeguards office-the Euratom Safeguards Directorate-accounts for all AONM within the Community's boundaries. The Australia-Euratom Agreement permits safeguards obligations to be exchanged between one quantity of nuclear material and another subject to the following conditions: the two quantities involved must be equivalent; there must be operational reasons for the exchange; both quantities must be located within Euratom's jurisdiction-that is, within the European Community; and the exchange must not result in reducing the quality of the material subject to Australian safeguards. For example, an exchange of high enriched uranium for an equivalent quantity of low enriched uranium or of low enriched uranium for natural uranium would constitute a reduction in quality. The approval of the Australian Safeguards Office would be required for any exception to this and no such approval has ever been either sought or given. The practice of exchanging safeguards obligations on equivalent quantities of low enriched uranium, to which the first allegation refers, does not therefore constitute a breach of the Australia-Euratom Safeguards Agreement provided the above conditions are met. In the example of an obligation exchange which has been brought to our attention by Der Spiegel and others there was no breach because these conditions were met. The second allegation, that Euratom set out with Nukem to circumvent safeguards controls on Australian uranium, in particular the need for prior consent for enrichment beyond 20 per cent, is based on the particular transaction which is documented in correspondence between Nukem and Euratom. The evidence available to the Government indicates that Euratom's approval of this transaction was consistent with the terms of the Australia-Euratom Safeguards Agreement. Indeed, the correspondence between Euratom and Nukem indicates that the Euratom Safeguards Directorate, by insisting on Nukem submitting a full and formal application before an exchange of obligations could be considered for approval, was concerned to ensure that Euratom's safeguards obligations to its treaty partners were observed. The net result of the exchange was that, while an amount of nuclear material became subject to United States obligations and therefore did not require the consent of Australia for enrichment beyond 20 per cent, an equivalent amount of nuclear material remained subject to Australian safeguards obligations. Clearly, the Euratom Safeguards Directorate adopted a rigorous approach in dealing with the Nukem request. This contrasts with the reported attitude of the apparently ill-informed officer in the Euratom Supply Agency, the Community's uranium buying agency, who, having no responsibility or authority for safeguards implementation, is nevertheless quoted in one of the internal Nukem documents as having advised Nukem on how obligation exchanges could take place. The third allegation, Der Spiegel's mention of Australia refusing to accept the concept of changing labels, refers not to obligation exchanges within the European Community-that is Euratom's jurisdiction-but to exchanges of obligations on equivalent quantities of nuclear material located in different countries with different safeguards jurisdictions. If Australian obligated uranium were to be involved in what are known as international flag swaps (IFS), this would amount to a transfer of AONM from Euratom's jurisdiction to another country. Australian consent would then be required. Australia has not given its consent for any international flag swaps and no AONM has been involved in any international flag swaps. The conditions under which Australian consent could be given are still the subject of discussion between Australia and Euratom. In relation to the fourth allegation, South African-Namibian uranium is not under embargo in the European Community. Euratom can thus buy, process and use South African and Namibian uranium and, within its jurisdiction, it can exchange South African or Namibian obligations with other national obligations, provided this is done in accordance with the terms of the relevant bilateral safeguards agreements. It cannot however, as noted above, approve an exchange of obligations between jurisdictions-that is, an international flag swap-involving AONM without the consent of the Australian Government. The Government has long suspected, and the two Euratom Supply Agency documents lend credence to this view, that the promoters of international flag swapping are partly driven by a desire to circumvent restrictions on South African and Namibian uranium. This is not to deny that there can be sound commercial and non-proliferation reasons for an international flag swap. The Government has made it very clear to Euratom in discussions which have taken place on this issue that its consent would not be given to any international flag swap involving South African or Namibian nuclear material. The final allegation that Euratom has swapped Australian nuclear material with `phantom' material has not been substantiated. We have raised this allegation with Nukem and have checked it with the Austrian authorities, who have assured us that the material in question was in no way fictitious. It was in the form of pieces of fuel pellets remaining after the fabrication of fuel for an Austrian reactor. This material was physically located in Hanau, Federal Republic of Germany, and was available for Austrian use until its sale to Nukem in 1986. It is misleading to describe this material as nuclear waste as some have done, because it was valuable nuclear material fully available for re-use as feed material for fuel fabrication and was equivalent to the other quantity of material involved in the obligation exchange. In conclusion, on the basis of the investigations that have been made and the information available to the Government, there is no evidence that any material subject to Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements has been diverted from peaceful use, or that Australia's safeguards requirements have been breached. The Government will, of course, continue to monitor the operation of Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements, in light of commercial and inter- national developments in the nuclear fuel cycle, to ensure that Australian obligated nuclear material remains in peaceful use, and Australian safeguards conditions continue to be observed. I table a chart headed `Major Steps in the Uranium Fuel Cycle' and an attachment headed `Australian Bilateral Nuclear Safeguards Agreements in Force at 20 April 1988'. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.18) —The coalition welcomes the Government's statement on Australian nuclear safeguards, first because it demonstrates the security of the Fraser Government's safeguards agreement. The Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) would not have been in this chamber at the time the Fraser Government introduced these safeguards arrangements and legislation, but I can tell him that when his Labor colleagues were in opposition they were not as praiseworthy of the safeguards agreements as they are now, in government. They rubbished the safeguards agreements, said that they were no good and used all the sorts of rhetoric that we shall hear later in this debate from the members of the Australian Democrats, Senator Wood and Senator Vallentine. Now they are in government and have the opportunity to examine the safeguards as a responsible government. One notes that the Government, which is responsible for the implementation of the safeguards, has introduced no amendments, has changed no agreements and has not had to do anything. According to Senator Cook, the safeguards agreements are the strictest in the world. We agree totally with the Government that the safeguards agreements are the strictest in the world. The coalition welcomes the reference by the Government to the Fraser Government's nuclear safeguards. We also welcome the statement because it demonstrates that the Australian Democrats and the anti-nuclear lobby have engaged in a deliberate campaign of misinformation for cheap publicity purposes. They are, of course, in the business of frightening people. I read an autobiographical story the other day in one of the newspapers by a woman who confessed that on three occasions during her teenage years, starting when she was about 13, she came to believe that the world was about to be blown to pieces. Now in her thirties, she realises that that was nonsense then and is nonsense now. The Democrats, Senator Wood and Senator Vallentine feed on this sort of propaganda. They use Goebbels-like demagoguery to frighten people and, in particular, to frighten very young people. I have heard Senator Vallentine speak in this chamber when a group of young people, aged about eight or nine, were sitting in the gallery. They were absolutely frightened by her demagoguery that the end of the world was nigh. Sweet little Senator Vallentine-people can listen to her later because no doubt we will hear from her-is a grand past master at the art of rabblerousing and demagoguery, the like of which Goebbels would have been proud of. She will do a little more rabblerousing later about this statement by the Government. It is, of course, natural that the public should be concerned about allegations regarding breaches of Australia's nuclear safeguards agreements. We on this side were concerned about those breaches. It is natural that the Democrat allegations, supported by Senator Vallentine and Senator Wood, would not only get widespread publicity but also cause public disquiet. Whether the media should have quoted those allegations in the dramatic terms espoused by the Democrats without researching the substance of the allegations is open to serious question. Flag swapping of nuclear materials is not a secret or illegal practice and is well documented. It is compatible with bilateral agreements that Euratom has concluded with Australia, Canada and the United States. The prior agreement of these third countries is required only in respect of flag swaps involving nuclear materials outside the community. The Euratom-Australia agreement permits internal flag swaps in arrangements that cover all aspects of the management of the agreement and expressly accepts the principle of equivalence and thus interchangeability of nuclear materials. The Democrats, and of course the loony left of the Minister's own Party, the Australian Labor Party, should have been aware of these facts, but they chose to repeat dubious and unsubstantiated allegations. The anti-nuclear lobby also chose to ignore the growing dependence of many nations on nuclear power. In 1987, 23 new nuclear reactors, adding slightly more than 23,000 megawatts generating capacity, were brought into commission in Bulgaria, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Hungary, Japan, Spain, the United States and the Soviet Union. This brought the total number of nuclear electricity plants worldwide to 417. Senator Sanders —That is frightening. Senator Wood —That is terrifying. Senator LEWIS —Their combined generating capacity came to almost 297,000 megawatts electrical. It substantially assisted their economies by reducing their consumption of non-renewable oil imports. Senator Sanders said that that was frightful. Senator Collins —It was Robert Wood. Senator LEWIS —Senator Wood came in later and said that it was terrible or some such thing. Senator Wood —Terrifying. Senator LEWIS —Terrifying. What would Senator Sanders and Senator Wood have these people do? Would they have them go cold and not be able to work? Senator Sanders —Use renewables. Senator LEWIS —Use renewables. They will get the sun to shine on them during the day and in that way they will be able to light their homes. It is absolutely fanciful, fairytale nonsense that Senator Sanders, Senator Wood and Senator Vallentine engage in. Senator Vallentine is making her long rabblerousing notes. Her pen is moving furiously as she makes her notes, ready to respond to my remarks. It will be very interesting to see whether my prediction is right. Senator Sanders would have people in these countries in the cold north, go cold, freeze or be unable to work because he says, `Look, don't you worry about having nuclear power. Get the sun to shine upon you somehow or another and provide the power that way'. If that were possible we would welcome it. No-one in this chamber would say that we would not want to do that. Of course, if it were economically possible-even if it were very expensive-that would be welcome. Senator Coulter —It is cheaper. Senator LEWIS —Senator Coulter chimes in that it is cheaper. They are going to have sun power around the world. It is absolute nonsense. Why does Senator Coulter not tell us that his house is currently lighted and heated in winter by this cheaper method? I bet that he is not using this cheaper method, yet he wants to impose it on other people. Senator Collins —He has suddenly gone silent. Senator LEWIS —Of course he has suddenly gone silent. The obsession of the anti-nuclear lobby disregards the economic reality of the world. I have said before that if people went to Gippsland and looked at the sulphuric smoke belching into the skies of eastern Victoria and causing smog that can be seen from 100 miles away, they would realise the benefit of nuclear power to all countries instead of burning coal to provide electricity. I think it is a tragedy that in Victoria we have to use coal. Admittedly, it is a resource which Victoria is endeavouring to use up. It is a tragedy that we have to use this coal in such a way as to put this smog into the atmosphere. The Democrats will say that it is also a terrible thing to have smog in the atmosphere. So they do not want coal power; they do not want oil burning power because they will tell us that the oil is running out; but they will not have a bar of nuclear power. They want the sun to shine on us for 24 hours a day and somehow or other be readily converted to electricity so as to provide light, power and energy for the many things that are being done around the world. As I said, it is fairytale nonsense that they come up with. Part of that economic reality is flag swapping, which can be explained and justified for both economic and safety reasons. Senator Cook, as the responsible Minister in this chamber, has gone into that matter in great detail. The Government has been generous in accepting that the anti-nuclear and anti-mining lobby allegations appear to flow from a lack of understanding of the complexities of international trade in nuclear material, confusion between internal and international flag swaps and, in particular, failure to understand the equivalence principle used in nuclear materials accounting. I suppose it is some sort of sop to members of the left wing that Senator Cook has to say, `Well, perhaps they did not understand it, we will have to explain it to them all again and in due course they will be able to work out that the safeguards introduced by the Fraser Government are all right'. I suppose he has to excuse them in some way, especially as a big Labor Party conference will be held in June. No doubt it is all important. As I said before, the Fraser Government set up Australia's safeguards agreements as the strictest in the world. We said that they were the strictest in the world at the time, and the Government has acknowledged that that is so. Today Senator Cook used the words, `Australia's safeguards are the strictest in the world'. They are such that Australia's uranium will not be used for, or diverted to, the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, research on or development of such weapons or devices, or any military purpose. The statement by the Government is valuable in that it illustrates how selective allegations out of context can create public mischief and the lengths that the anti-nuclear, anti-mining lobby will go to obtain publicity. Those allegations, now found to be totally unsubstantiated, have done nothing to further sensible debate on uranium mining. The Government has problems with its left wing over uranium mining and the sale of nuclear material, and that has also contributed to the widespread publicity given to these allegations. This statement should now put an end to the matter so that we can get on with developing our uranium industry in the knowledge that our safeguards system is the strictest in the world. We must also recognise that the use of coal in power generation is becoming less attractive due to the factors that I have mentioned before and the consequent greenhouse effect; and with the ultimate decline in oil supplies, uranium as an energy source is clearly here to stay. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.32) —I am not surprised to hear the flat earthers of the Opposition supporting this ministerial statement because they, like the Australian Labor Party, want to export uranium and they do not really care about the consequences of their actions. Senator Lewis, in his presentation, called all the papers we have been presenting allegations. They are not allegations; they are facts. No-one in this chamber or anywhere else has ever disputed the facts as presented in the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) documents, in the Nukem documents and in the documents that I presented to the Government. These are not allegations; these are facts. Senator Lewis also said that renewables do not work-`How do you expect to heat your house from sun falling on the roof, or light your house from solar power?'. He said, `What about the people in the northern climates. What would they do?'. What about the people of Sweden? What are they going to do? They have nuclear power. They voted to eliminate their nuclear power plants and they have embarked on a program of using renewable energy exclusively. Senator Coulter —Since Chernobyl they are speeding the pace up. Senator SANDERS —As Senator Coulter says, since Chernobyl they are speeding the pace up. Chernobyl should teach us a lesson. Obviously it is not teaching a lesson to anyone in the Opposition. Those opposite believe in technology. They think that technology will solve all our problems. Nuclear power is presenting them with a problem that they simply cannot solve. Technology is not up to solving the problems of nuclear power. What about this ministerial statement? Frankly, I am very disappointed in the statement, because the Government is ignoring a huge scandal in Germany. This scandal has caused three people involved in the companies to commit suicide. The German Government has closed down two of the companies involved. The companies have admitted $14m in bribes. Yet the Government's statement has said that everything is okay. The Government says, `We have the strongest safeguards system in the world, everything is fine and flag swaps are okay'. I am really disappointed because the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) intimated earlier that the Government would be taking a look at the system and perhaps toughening the safeguards; but now there is no toughening of the safeguards. What about the safeguards themselves? If anything, this whole issue has shown that there are no safeguards of uranium. The actual uranium is not safeguarded; the molecules of uranium are not safeguarded. We have no way of knowing, when uranium or yellowcake leaves this country, what is going to be its end use and where the actual molecules of uranium are going to end up. Senator Evans, Senator Cook and other people have said in this chamber, `We do not know where the uranium is going'. The nuclear industry has set up an elaborate edifice to track paper and governments have followed its bidding. We are not tracking uranium; we are tracking paper. The Australian Safeguards Office can 95 per cent guarantee that no Australian paper ends up in nuclear weapons! It cannot guarantee where the uranium went, but it sure knows that the paper is clean. That simply is not good enough. We want to know where the uranium went, but no-one can tell us where the uranium went. Last night we had a briefing by Senator Cook, Mr Kerin and Frank Betts of the Australian Safeguards Office. I appreciate the fact that we had the briefing. Mr Betts of the Safeguards Office repeated a comment that Senator Gareth Evans had made in the Senate chamber-that he was sure that the French were not misusing our uranium and were not using it for bombs because they told us that they were not using it for bombs. I trust the French just about as far as I can throw the Rainbow Warrior-and no further. Senator Tambling —It is probably reciprocated. Senator SANDERS —They do not trust me at all and I do not trust them, because they have made so many statements that have been shown to be false. We are told that, because they say they do not use our uranium in bombs, they do not use our uranium in bombs. What happens when our yellowcake goes to France? It is processed in the Tricastin plant, in some instances. In its first stages there is no difference between military processing and civil processing of yellowcake. The first stage is to convert it into a gas called uranium hexaflouride. Once this is done, it may be streamed off later, but the first steps are exactly the same. The Tricastin plant is a joint military-civil facility. That is where our yellowcake goes. The French say, `No, we would not use that product for bombs; it goes only to the civil stream'. We are talking about a pool of uranium. No-one actually differentiates which uranium it is, where it came from or where it is going. Transactions take place on paper. The uranium itself may not even move in some instances. It is absolutely impossible for the Government or anybody else to say that our uranium does not end up in bombs. We had a visitor from Europe, Mr Hans Blix. He is the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, an agency which is charged with both the promotion and the control of nuclear energy. He was interviewed on 18 April 1988 on the World Today, that excellent Australian Broadcasting Corporation program. The interviewer, Martin Hurst, said: Can you say with complete certainty, that that uranium can't be used for other purposes? Hans Blix: Yes. All the uranium that we safeguard, that is the essence of safeguard, that we verify that it is used only for peaceful purposes. But whether it is the same atom or another one, doesn't bother us. Martin Hurst: And you are completely satisfied that Australian uranium has not been diverted at all out of Europe? Hans Blix: We are concerned that a kilogram of uranium that goes in, that remains a kilogram, but not the same atoms. If they swap, that's no problem of ours. Unidentified: But it could be our uranium could be involved, that is what you are saying? Hans Blix: I don't know. I don't know. Whether those atoms go somewhere else, we don't know. This is the head of the Agency who is supposed to be monitoring all this. He does not know where they go. Senator Collins —But that has always been the situation. Senator SANDERS —As the honourable senator says, it has always been the situation, and that is the problem. The whole system, this whole bureaucracy of safeguards, is necessary to satisfy people's doubts, but it does not satisfy their doubts; all it shows is where the paper goes. There is no way to track where the actual uranium goes and that is why we should stop shipping it. If we have a moral responsibility, which we do, to ensure that our uranium is not used for warlike or military purposes, we must stop shipping it, because at the moment there is no way at all to say where it is going. We have this idea of equivalency. What about our equivalency? The Government has often said, `It does not matter. We do not care about the molecules or the atoms. We are worried about the total amount of uranium'. The Government has often said `We don't care about the molecules or the atoms. What we are worried about is the total amount of uranium'. Take the hypothetical situation where one's grandfather has died. There is a funeral and we all attend and pay our last respects to our grandfather as he goes down that well-greased chute into the crematorium and eventually we are presented with an urn full of ashes. They are not just any old ashes, they did not come from the incinerator down at the tip, from the dog pound or from anywhere else, they are grandfather's ashes. We want to know that they are grandfather's ashes. It is no good their being somebody else's ashes. It is the same with uranium. We want to know that it is our uranium, but at the moment there is no way of knowing this, because all parties involved in this say they cannot tell where our uranium goes and they cannot say what it is used for. What about flag swapping? The whole idea of flag swapping, which is so accepted by the Government, the Opposition, the European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, is morally dishonest. The European Community's EC News, which is published in Australia by the Press and Information Service Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities, in March 1988 contained a long article headed ` ``Flagswaps'' of nuclear materials'; I will read only a small part. It gives an illustration of a flag swap, and it states: Flagswaps can be explained and justified for economic and security reasons. A simple example to illustrate a swap: In the Community, an operator, eg manufacturer of fuel elements for nuclear power stations, has 80 per cent Canadian uranium and 20 per cent Australian uranium, these being required for the manufacture of the elements. As he needs the full quantity which is subject to the safeguards obligations of two different countries (Canada and Australia), the situation can then become complicated for the end-user: the latter has to keep complex accounts when managing his fuel and runs the risk of his spent fuel being refused by the reprocessing plant on account of its dual origin. It is refused by the reprocessing plant. The operator does not want this to happen, so: The operator therefore wishes to have it officially certified, by Euratom, that the full quantity of uranium he requires is from the same ``origin''. This is when the swap takes place. Operator ``A'' approaches a second operator ``B'', in the Community, who accepts that ``A'''s 20 per cent uranium of Australian origin should be relabelled as being ``of Canadian origin'' and that, in exchange, 20 per cent of the Canadian uranium in his possession should become ``Australian''. He can now reprocess it by getting around Australia's safeguards and Australia's wishes about reprocessing-- Senator Cook —Aren't you confusing international and internal flag swaps? Senator SANDERS —No, I am explaining why flag swaps are done. They are done to avoid some restriction or other on the material. A country, such as Canada or the United States of America, might not want to use South African or Namibian uranium and therefore it gets a flag swap. It can get its flag swapped internally in Euratom. It can get it swapped externally. But the whole point of the flag swapping is to make material, which may be objectionable on political grounds, acceptable. It is a way of getting around other people's safeguards and wishes. As such, it is a subterfuge, it is not being honest. What about the Euratom documents which just came through on flag swaps? What does Euratom want on this, and incidentally what will it get, because Australia is obviously not going to do anything about this situation? Euratom wants to weaken the safeguards conditions of Australia, the United States and Canada to win acceptance of international flag swaps. Euratom believes that Australia needs `education'. That was in its document. We must be educated to break down our resistance to international flag swaps. If Australia, the United States and Canada accept international flag swaps, Euratom does not want them to find out the other countries involved in individual swaps. European utilities have exchanged Australian uranium with South African-Namibian uranium. This was in the documents. In fact it was included in the statement today. Euratom is promoting relabelling procedures, changes of origin and origin swaps to facilitate the entry of South African and Namibian origin uranium into the world market. Origin swaps between uranium shipments are already taking place in the US and possibly in Europe. They could involve Australian uranium without the knowledge of Euratom or the Australian Government. Euratom and the Australian Safeguards Office (ASO) cannot track the movement of Australian origin uranium through the European Economic Community (EEC). The ASO may be unable to fulfil its duty to report to Parliament. The Office cannot track the material. It has the duty to report to Parliament but it may not be able to fulfil its duty. The Australian Government would have to rely on private nuclear industry firms to respect voluntarily a ban on the export of Australian uranium to France. Even if we did ban the sale of our uranium to France, which I hope we will, flag swapping could get around the ban. What are the implications for Australia? To summarise, the United States, one of the uranium customers, allows origin swaps. European firms may already be performing origin swaps and Euratom does not track the origin of nuclear material in the EEC. This means that a ban on Australian uranium shipments to France or any other country cannot be verified, because Australian origin material cannot be traced and could be origin swapped without the Government's knowledge. In order to track Australian uranium through the EEC, the ASO would have to get information from Euratom or private firms. But Euratom does not have that information and private firms refuse to divulge the origin of shipments held by them. What is the obvious conclusion? It is that we must not ship our uranium, we must keep it in the ground in Australia, because once it leaves these shores there is absolutely no way of ensuring that it will not end up in the bombs that the French are exploding at Mururoa. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(5.46) —Today we are debating the statement by the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, in response to an allegation in the West German magazine Der Spiegel in its editions of 18 January and 15 and 22 February 1988 in relation to the so-called misuses of Australian nuclear energy material. But we are not talking about those particular allegations today, and I guess that is the major reason why the Australian Democrats have raised this particular issue. They are not talking about flag swaps or the allegations raised in the magazine Der Spiegel and repeated here by a number of their members. They are in fact talking about the whole principle of nuclear energy as an essential part of the creation and use of energy for industrial and civil purposes in our community. We are talking about an industry on which many industrialised countries totally rely. If they are not totally reliant upon it, they are significantly reliant upon that energy for electricity generation. It is simply not possible for us in resource rich Australia to bury our heads in the sand and tell those countries to find some alternative source. What do we say to France, for example, which currently uses nuclear power to generate something like 70 per cent of its electricity requirements? What do we tell the Japanese, who currently use about 25 per cent of Japan's electricity grid through the nuclear area, more in fact than coal? What do we say to the other countries that I will presently talk about? Do we say to them `Look for some other alternative source', if they are resource poor? How do we change the economic infrastructure of countries that for years have relied upon nuclear energy generation for their electricity basis? I wish to read to the Senate the figures relating to the major world users of nuclear energy for civil purposes, to give some indication to the Senate just how reliant those countries are on nuclear energy for electricity generation, and therefore for the proper and effective operation of their industrial processes. According to the `Nuclear Power Situation: OECD Countries' of 31 December 1986, 60 per cent of all of Belgium's electrical energy requirements is generated by nuclear power; in Canada, the figure is 15 per cent; in Finland 38 per cent; in France 69.8 per cent; in the Federal Republic of Germany, 29.6 per cent; in Japan 24.6 per cent; in the Netherlands 5.9 per cent; in Spain 28 per cent; and Sweden, the country that Senator Sanders talked about a while ago, is still reliant to a degree of 50 per cent on nuclear power to generate electrical energy. That country is not exactly turning its back on nuclear energy. The figure for Switzerland is 39 per cent; for the United Kingdom, 18.4 per cent; and for the United States, 16.6 per cent. This is irrefutable evidence that all of those developed countries, most of the developed countries in Europe, rely significantly on nuclear energy to provide their basic electrical energy to heat houses, run factories and base their industrial growth on. Are Australians going to stand here and say that the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes such as this is to be suddenly banned? Are we going to play God to those countries and say, `Look for other sources; go for coal and pollute your valleys, pollute your cities.'? Are we to say to Japan, `Look for other methods of supplying your energy, import more coal from around the world, lift the cost of your economic infrastructure and make yourself an inefficient, ineffective and uncompetitive exporter.'? Of course not. Australia cannot play God to those countries. The Government recognises that nuclear energy is potentially dangerous. We recognise the danger to mankind of a proliferation of nuclear weapons, but we also realise that the rest of the world is dependent upon nuclear energy to generate the basis of its industrial growth. The Australian policy is quite clear. We say that no Australian uranium is to be exported or sold to any country which cannot guarantee that that uranium will not be used for research into or the development or manufacture of nuclear weapons. That is totally unequivocal. We say that Australian uranium can be sold to those countries which are prepared to enter into clear, legally binding bilateral agreements with us that they will use that uranium only for civil purposes. They must agree to inspectorates, inspections and a regime of control geared towards ensuring that there is no diversion of uranium from civil to military purposes. Those countries accept that regime which we write into the bilateral agreements. We believe that the allegations raised in Der Spiegel, the allegations raised in this House, and those raised in the Press of this country by various politicians and journalists, ought to be raised if there is a genuine concern about breaches of those safeguards. This Government ought to be concerned if that is the case. The Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) is concerned. He took those allegations seriously. He knew that behind those allegations was probably a degree of political speculation and point-scoring on the part of, for example, the Australian Democrats or the Nuclear Disarmament Party, who are basically out to prove that the use of nuclear energy, full stop, ought to be banned. We know that that may have been their motivation, but we accept in good faith that some of those allegations do need looking at. We do not accept that they are facts, as Senator Sanders said. They are not facts; they are currently allegations. The Government's response has been quick. Its response has been to go through all the processes that are set in train to check out allegations such as these. For example, by the time Parliament returned, I think on 22 February, Senator Cook was ready to respond to a question about this issue. The Der Spiegel article itself had been translated and double checked, and a response obtained. That was less than one month after the first allegation appeared in Der Spiegel. Senator Cook did not sit on his backside, nor did the Australian Safeguards Office. The Government would be concerned if these allegations were true but we are simply not going to say in this House for the sake of political expediency, as Senator Sanders has done, that these are facts. It is precisely that type of irresponsible rabblerousing that not only gives the nuclear industry a bad name-and that is deliberate on the part of some groups in the community-but also ensures that no Government will ever confidently be able to set up a regime which it can sell to the community, which it can convince the community is an acceptable way of responsibly controlling the growth of the nuclear power around the world. As I indicated before, we cannot turn our backs on the reliance on nuclear energy in this world. It is an irrelevance and socially irresponsible to do so. There has been a certain degree of changing of horses in mid-stream by the Democrats over this issue, and that concerns me. Originally the allegations were lifted from Der Spiegel in relation to flag swapping. Initially there was an attempt to show that flag swapping, particularly internal flag swapping, was deliberately intended to breach the safeguards that apply in a number of those bilateral agreements, that in fact there was some sort of conspiracy to defraud. Flag swapping is now under attack as a principle of operation. The Democrats have moved from saying that these are allegations about corruption and deceit to pushing the view that flag swapping, per se, is unethical and probably an ineffective way of covering the possible abuses of nuclear power, particularly nuclear material that could be diverted for military purposes. We have to ask a simple question. We can do the bookkeeping, the auditing, the swapping through the written material, as Senator Sanders indicated, which is basically the way in which flag swapping is done, or we have the alternative of physically transporting the material from A to B, from buyer to seller, from user to processor and from producer to processor. Let us look at the consequences of that. In that situation we would have nuclear material moving around Europe, being transferred between countries. There would be no paperwork, as there is with flag swapping, but the physical movement of nuclear material by rail or by ship around the world. Consider the possibilities of increasing the movement of that sort of material around Europe. We would increase, for example, the possibilities for terrorism and the possibilities for accidents in the transport system, on the highways and railways and in the shipping lanes. We would have the whole problem of ensuring that we had security tight enough to protect the movement of that material, but it might well be security so tight that there was an invasion of the civil liberties of citizens who live near or have any contact with that particular transport system. If one disagrees with that viewpoint one should look very closely at what happened with the cruise missiles stationed in Britain. There is simply a blocking off of highways for significant periods. There is a takeover of the roadside control points and there is no travel by private individuals on the highways designated for the conveyance of these cruise missiles. The simple fact is that the need to secure those missiles has taken over the rights of individuals in the British community. Amplify that to moving nuclear material around Europe in the way that has presumably been proposed by Senator Sanders in opposition to the concept of flag swapping, and one can quite easily see the danger not only to safety but also to people's civil liberties, particularly in Europe. I indicate once again the Government's concern in regard to these allegations-not the allegations per se but the motivation behind them being raised and the way in which the debate has been changed. The Minister for Resources had the article of 15 January translated and, as I indicated, when he was asked a question in the Senate on this matter on 22 February he said that by that time his officers had already translated the article and had set in train an examination of the allegations. The Minister's answer certainly indicates that he intends to take action in regard to this matter. However, it is important that the Senate maintain the debate at a level of credibility, that we look at ways of improving Australia's safeguards for the overseas sale of Australian nuclear material. We should not attack the nuclear energy industry per se, but we should work together responsibly to ensure that Australia sets the appropriate pattern for the transmission, sale and processing of uranium throughout the world. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(6.01) —This evening we are debating a statement by the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) on Australian nuclear safeguards. In addressing this matter I will dwell particularly on the word `safeguards' because I have always regarded that term and everything that it implies as a euphemism behind which governments, commercial nuclear establishments, government and semi-government interests-such as the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the British Atomic Energy Authority, and the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States-hide, because there are no such things as safeguards. No reliance can be placed on safeguards whatsoever. The process is a lie behind which the civil and military nuclear programs have become established and are maintained. That is the point that I really wish to make. I pick up a statement made by the Minister for Resources and see attached to it a diagram entitled `Major Steps in the Uranium Fuel Cycle'. I do not know how many times I have seen diagrams such as this. It is not possible to illustrate it so I simply point out that it shows a completed cycle which begins with mining, then goes on to the conversion of yellowcake to uranium hexafluoride, enrichment, fuel fabrication, its placement in a nuclear power station, the storage of spent fuel, reprocessing, and then turning it back into uranium hexafluoride and completing the cycle. One of the nations that Senator Aulich mentioned, the United States-until quite recently the nation with the largest total commitment to nuclear power-has no commercial reprocessing whatsoever. The only reprocessing in that country at the present time, with very few exceptions, is for the extraction of plutonium for the manufacture of weapons. There is no such thing as a nuclear fuel cycle. That cycle has not been closed for the very good reason that it is very expensive indeed-in terms of both human health and money associated with reprocessing. In this place not so long ago I gave the example of a nuclear reprocessing plant which operated in West Valley just outside New York between 1967 and 1971. During that time the plant employed 10 temporary workers for every permanent worker, because it could operate only by exposing workers up to the allowable limit of radiation. Workers were employed for as little as three minutes in some cases and were then given half a day's pay and dismissed. In other words, workers were employed for the ability of their bodies to absorb radiation-not because they had any particular skills. That poses very serious moral questions for all those who support nuclear power because they present reprocessing as an implicit and necessary part of the nuclear fuel cycle, and it has been presented to us in that way this afternoon. Recent recalculation of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki data strongly suggests that the allowable radiation limits now in place in this country and in most other countries around the world, with the exception of the United Kingdom, are between five and 15 times too high. Recently the United Kingdom reduced its allowable levels of radiation by a factor of three. If reprocessing could not continue under the old standards, I wonder how it will proceed under the new standards. What has been presented to us this afternoon, on its own evidence, bears a very considerable lie. Safeguards as such are essentially impossible. The whole nuclear fuel process is essentially identical for military and civil purposes. The same sort of hardware is involved and plutonium for military purposes is created in reactors which are essentially no different from civil reactors. In fact, the Calder Hall reactor, which manufactures the plutonium from Australian uranium which was exploded at Maralinga, was the first civil nuclear power station to come on line in the UK. Some of that plutonium it manufactured is still in Australia. I note that Senator Collins is present in the chamber. I point out that that plutonium is still seriously contaminating areas now being offered back to the Aboriginal community for occupation. Right from the beginning there has been an inextricable mixing of the civil and military nuclear programs, and there is no way that they can be kept separate. It was mentioned earlier this afternoon that many countries have made a commitment to nuclear power. Looking at the history, one finds abundant evidence in the literature that it began in the US as a purely civil process under President Eisenhower and the Atoms for Peace program in, I believe, about 1953. Looking at the history, one finds that at that time the Americans spent $4.7 billion-and I think that figure is correct; I have not been able to find it in my papers-promoting the civil use of nuclear power to large organisations such as Westinghouse and others which went on to develop nuclear power. One can find from then on over many decades declarations from pro-nuclear people within the nuclear power industry to the effect that nuclear power would never have become established had it been left to normal commercial or market forces. It was only because the Government weighed in to such a massive extent and got organisations such as Westinghouse, General Electric and other large multinational organisations to invest large amounts of money in the development of this program that it ever made it off the ground. Senator Lewis said jokingly that there were no alternatives. As recently as a couple of weeks ago our newspapers quoted the cost of the latest nuclear plant to come on line just outside New York. It is, I think, a 1,080 megawatt station and it cost $8.6 billion-$8.60 per watt. In Australia one can buy retail small solar power units for $10 a watt or even less, and with large units one can do considerably better than that. Senator Collins —Have you got one installed? Senator COULTER —This is a rapidly moving technology, Senator Collins, and indeed I do have a solar panel which I use, as a matter of fact. Senator Collins —For hot water; I have one of those. Senator COULTER —It is a solar panel which I use for electricity generation. Senator Wood —I have a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: it relates to the amount of interjection on and harassment of Senator Coulter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —I have called senators on my left to order and I hope that they will adhere to that. Senator COULTER —France was mentioned as an example. France has gone into considerable international debt, a substantial portion of which is borne by Electricite de France because of its commitment to building nuclear power stations. While it is true that the percentage of electricity derived from nuclear sources in France is high, for a number of years France has continued to build nuclear power stations simply to keep its nuclear power station building industry alive, not because it needs more nuclear power. Having made that very considerable capital investment, it now has to generate cash flow from that. Of course, it uses those reactors to generate electricity and, in fact, it is exporting electricity from France to other European countries at below cost to generate the cash flow, to help to repay that very large capital indebtedness. Sweden was mentioned: it is true that a large proportion of Sweden's electricity is derived from nuclear sources. I point out in passing here that the total percentage of energy which a country uses as electricity is quite small, so even if it is only 50 per cent, perhaps only 8 or 10 per cent of total energy is being derived from nuclear sources. Nonetheless, despite that dependency, through a referendum several years ago Sweden decided to phase out its nuclear power stations. Following the Chernobyl disaster a further referendum was held, and the Swedish people have decided to speed up that phase-out. In terms of the cost of nuclear power, I mention in passing here that even the Russians have estimated the incidence of up to 40,000 cancers in western Russian alone as a consequence of that single reactor accident at Chernobyl. One must ask the question: How does one estimate costs of renewables vis-a-vis nuclear power? The principal point I want to make this evening concerns the record of what was actually happening with one of our nuclear trading partners in 1983, at the time the Labor Government came into office and at the conclusion of a number of years of Liberal Party government. There was abundant evidence at that time that the United Kingdom was supplying and had supplied civil plutonium to the United States of America military program. Part of the reason that this came about was that the Americans were politically embarrassed about taking their own plutonium from their civil program into their military program and sought to buy UK plutonium instead. A pro-nuclear worker in the Central Electricity Generating Board who had always defended civil nuclear power-as Liberal Party and National Party members are doing here this afternoon-on the grounds that there was a distinct and identifiable difference between the civil and military programs and one could separate the two, suddenly discovered that civil plutonium from the UK was going into the US military program and went public on it. The officer was sacked and, in the process of reinstatement, this story came out. I now refer to an article published in a 1983 edition of the New Scientist. The article is sub-headed: Britain's civil nuclear power program is said to have produced a stockpile of plutonium big enough to make 14,000 nuclear warheads. No one is accountable for the destination and use of this material. Britain is a country with which we have regularly traded and to which we have supplied uranium. The article continues: As well as generating electricity, Magnox reactors- which are the oxide based reactors which have been commonly used in the United Kingdom- are particularly efficient at producing plutonium . . . Past links between the civil use of nuclear power and its military application are clearly documented, giving the lie to government blandishments that there are no connections. The UK's first so-called commercial nuclear reactor, the Calder Hall Magnox, Cumbria, began operating in 1956. It was designed, and that particular type of reactor developed, with a dual purpose in mind: to produce plutonium for the military with 50 megawatts of electricity as a byproduct. Calder Hall's four reactors and the quartet at Chapel Cross, Dumfriesshire, now run by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, produce plutonium for the Ministry of Defence. Britain's civil nuclear power stations also produce plutonium. The official stance is that none of this plutonium is destined for anything other than non-military purposes . . . Among a bundle of parliamentary answers on the topic submitted- this is the topic of diversion- by Priddle are extracts from Hansard of 9 March this year [that is, 1983]. They include a written exchange involving Under Secretary John Moore. He explained that plutonium derived from the Central Electricity Generating Board and South of Scotland Electricity Board Magnox power stations was exported to the US before 1971. Moore said that the plutonium was used for civil purposes in the US. In return, under a barter arrangement, a quantity of highly enriched uranium for the UK defence programme was obtained. The export of plutonium has therefore benefited the UK defence programme . . . There have been other developments which point to an overlap between civil and military use of nuclear power. In the late 1950s the government asked the CEGB to modify the design of a number of advanced gas-cooled reactors. This involved changes in the refuelling system; it was a bid to make it easier to obtain weapons-grade plutonium. Then, in 1985-well within the time of this Labor Government's time in office-there appeared in the journal Nature, a well-respected scientific journal, a paper on an estimation of the total production of plutonium in the British civil nuclear power system. This is a detailed assessment, looking at each individual power station and, given the amount of power produced, the amount of plutonium that it would generate. The article states: We conclude that 6.3 plus or minus 0.8 tons of civil plutonium, approximately one sixth of the total civil stockpile, are currently missing. We believe that there is at least 2 tons of UK civil plutonium in destinations other than those admitted in parliamentary answers. Until this is clarified the suspicion will exist that these destinations could be military. It then pointed out that this was a most unsatisfactory situation. It is pointed out that, very cleverly, the Central Electricity Generating Board never published the figures for the plutonium production for individual power stations. The Central Electricity Generating Board answered that article but it did not reveal the actual figures for plutonium production. The authors of the article subsequently answered that correspondence and pointed out that the Central Electricity Generating Board could easily have disposed of this question of the diversion by simply revealing the figures but had chosen not to do that. Finally, the gentleman who had been a long term employee of the Central Electricity Generating Board and who had been sacked wrote a letter and pointed out a number of rather disturbing factors. He said: First, CEGB- the Central Electricity Generating Board- is party to a statement that `` . . . approximately four tonnes . . . '' of such plutonium has been exported to the United States under the provisions of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement and its 1959 Amendment, Cmnd 859 (The Electrical Power Engineer, page 163, August/September 1984). Second, Paragraph C of Article V of Cmnd 859 specifies an exclusive use of this plutonium: ``the preparation or implementation of defence plans'' . . . Third, and setting the issue beyond reasonable doubt, a spokesman for the US government has recently stated that `` . . . the Mutual Defence Agreement actually requires the United States to use all plutonium obtained from the United Kingdom under the Agreement for military purposes . . .'' (The Electrical Power Engineer, February 1985, page 38 . . . The apparent material inaccuracy- which has been picked up in estimating the missing plutonium from the inventory- is very considerable. Approximately 4,000 kg of plutonium is enough for a thousand bombs, perhaps two thousand if the design is sophisticated, more than enough to devastate the whole of Europe, or the whole of the Soviet Union, or both. Thus the apparent involvement of the UK ``civil'' nuclear power programme in weapons production is on a very large scale indeed. Here we are talking about something far, far bigger than the flag swaps which have been talked about in recent days in the Senate. The letter continues: A similar, apparently false statement occurs in a written Parliamentary Answer published in the first weeks of the Sizewell Inquiry- Sizewell at that stage was a proposed nuclear power station which was under the process of public inquiry- `` . . . no plutonium from the CEGB nuclear programme has ever been exported for use in weapons . . . '' (Hansard, Commons, 4 February 1983 . . . There was abundant evidence at the time this Labor Government came into office and the former Liberal Government left office that one of our major trading partners for uranium exports was engaged in the transference of plutonium derived from its civil program into the American military program. That evidence is unequivocal, it is well documented. The claims that there are safeguards are nothing more than a charade or a euphemistic term behind which this Government and governments in the United Kingdom and other countries have hidden for a long time, a charade behind which the public is denied real knowledge of what is going on. The sooner that charade is torn away the better. Far from the Australian Democrats, Senator Wood and Senator Vallentine behaving irresponsibly in revealing these facts, we believe that the world will be a much better place if we do not use a source of power which is not only dangerous because of its connections with military uses but also is totally unnecessary: there are indeed other ways to go. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(6.24) —I believe the statement of the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) on Australian nuclear safeguards is not reassuring. The Government cannot prove what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has often claimed, that no Australian uranium ends up in nuclear weapons. The statement does not prove it and I think many people around the country will remain unconvinced by the statement which has been made in the House of Representatives and in the Senate today. I understand the Government's argument about the amount of uranium that goes in and can be accounted for on paper but I remain totally unconvinced by that as an argument that no Australian uranium ends up in nuclear weapons. The safeguards remain a paper shuffling exercise. They are not worth the paper they are written on. As Senator Sanders said, probably the only thing that we can be sure of is that no Australian paper ends up in nuclear weapons programs. However, for the first time the Government has been forced to admit publicly that once Australian yellowcake enters the nuclear fuel cycle it cannot be traced. So the debate has been very useful as an educational exercise in letting Australian people know something about the progress of what actually happens to Australian uranium in the nuclear fuel cycle. The Government has actually had to admit the flag swapping, making an absolute farce of the Prime Minister's often repeated claim that no Australian uranium enters the nuclear weapons cycle. I ask the Government to prove that claim. The onus is on the Government to do that and I believe it cannot do it. It has not done it in this statement. Dr Hans Blix, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated earlier this week in Sydney: `It is impossible to know whether or not Australian uranium is used in nuclear weapons'. He is a person who should really know about these things, as the Director-General of the IAEA. He also admitted this week that the IAEA, the agency which has international responsibility for both promoting and monitoring the nuclear industry, is understaffed. Having the IAEA in that position is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the chicken house. The IAEA has 200 inspectors who go to various nuclear establishments to ensure that no diversion from nuclear energy production to nuclear weapons production takes place. But it does not have enough inspectors to get around all of the nuclear establishments-that is, in countries which allow full and open inspection-and in some countries they are invited to inspect only certain establishments and not others. So this is not an adequate method of monitoring the nuclear industry. The IAEA is on its collective back foot at the moment trying to promote an industry trying to survive against a better informed public justifiably very cautious about nuclear power following the disastrous accident at Chernobyl. The long-lasting effects of that accident are of course still to be identified but very few countries are proceeding as they had intended with their nuclear power plans. Many countries-this was detailed in the debate we had in the Senate a few weeks ago so I will not go through it again-have scaled down their plans for nuclear energy and many plants have been cancelled in various countries. I believe only the Soviet Union and Japan are proceeding with their original plans despite the accidents and the justifiable fears of the world's citizens as they become more concerned about this very dangerous form of technology which, once it is out of hand, has been proven to be totally uncontrollable. Let us get back to the Australian uranium question. The Australian Safeguards Office (ASO) is very unhappy about the safeguards process. The ASO is the Government agency which is meant to monitor the safeguards from the Australian point of view. In its 1986-87 annual report it says in paragraph 53: This reported method does not evaluate the possibility that undetected diversion might occur or identify the most probable ways in which attempts at diversion would be made. Later it says: . . . the IAEA decided to investigate alternative methods of assessment. In paragraph 54 it says that a: proposed new method of probabilistic assessment of safeguards effectiveness (PASE) . . . promises to overcome some of the conceptual problems encountered by the IAEA and its consultants in this work. That is an admission that all is not well, that the safeguards are not working, when it talks about conceptual problems which have been identified. It is an enormous problem at the moment to make sure that these safeguards are actually working. The Labor Government made two promises on the uranium question. One was that Australian uranium would not end up in nuclear weapons. It cannot prove that. The second was that it would not sell uranium to France while it was testing weapons in the South Pacific. Both of those promises have been broken and each breach reinforces the other. By selling to France, where the Government controls both the nuclear power and the nuclear weapons industries, there is an overlap of facilities. This is despite what the Government might say about a clear delineation between the two. It is impossible to establish a clear delineation between nuclear power for civil purposes and the production of material for the nuclear weapons industry in France. Possibly this happens in other countries, too, but in France it is particularly clear. I quote from a document prepared by Senator Sanders's office last year, called `France: The Nuclear Renegade', which clearly shows the links between the military and civilian nuclear programs in that country. It states: David Albright, a researcher with the Federation of American Scientists, has written that [t]he French government does not generally distinguish between civilian and military nuclear installations, for `economic' reasons. Albright cites a 1973 CEA activity report: `The CEA must . . . adapt the production of military nuclear material . . . by taking advantage of . . . civilian programs (which have themselves greatly benefited from military programs) in order to limit the costs'. The lack of separation is obvious from the role of the CEA, which oversees both the military and civilian programs, and its subsidiary, Cogema, which produces fuel for power reactors as well as for warheads. It is also obvious when the roles of specific nuclear facilities are considered. There is a whole list of them but I will mention just three. The Pierrelatte uranium enrichment plant is mainly for the production of weapons-grade uranium, but has also produced the first core of the Phenix fast breeder reactor, which was initially a pilot plant for the Superphenix. The Tricastin uranium enrichment plant is mainly for the production of fuel for civilian plants, but also does low and medium level enrichment for the Pierrelatte plant, which further enriches the uranium to weapons-grade material. So the stuff goes from one plant to another and finally ends up in nuclear weapons. The Phenix fast breeder reactor was built as a pilot plant for the much larger Superphenix, which is intended for commercial operation. However, the Phenix also produces weapons-grade plutonium which, according to Nucleaonics Week, `has provided plutonium to the military branch of the CEA'. A CEA spokesman has said that Phenix `is not accessible to international safeguards since it is susceptible to working for defence needs'. France is not even a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The job which the IAEA prides itself on doing is making sure that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is adhered to. As France is not even a signatory to the Treaty, it is outside the regulations. Its plants are not open for general inspection. Let us consider Euratom, the European Economic Community's nuclear regulatory agency, which is, in turn, overseen by the IAEA. Euratom is delegated by the IAEA to supervise safeguards on the movement and use of nuclear materials in Europe. Documents from a meeting, of Euratom on 3 December 1987 reveal that Euratom has tried to find ways to help its clients get round international safeguards. Flag swapping is part of that process. The Government argued in its statement today that flag swapping is okay if it is within certain guidelines, such as the prohibition of international flag swaps and the prohibition of enrichment beyond 20 per cent without the Australian Government's approval. That I acknowledge. However, minutes from a meeting of Euratom reveal that the agency has considered a new reflagging system under which enriched uranium could change its nominal country of origin. This point about the country of origin of the material is most important. Euratom officials also stated that a consider- able education effort had been made to force a decision on flag swapping by Australian authorities, but the minutes said that the Australian authorities had refused to take a decision, which is to their credit. However, Mr Kerin, when asked about this matter, said that the Australian Government preferred to rely on the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor the fate of Australian uranium once it left our shores because Euratom was `biased'. A spokesperson for the Minister said that nevertheless the Australian Government maintained full confidence in Euratom. Why on earth would the Government have full confidence in Euratom if minutes of Euratom's own meeting show that clearly it is trying to help the companies it supplies to get round the safeguards? It is trying to put in place a new method of safeguarding so that it can change the country of origin. In other words, then it would be able to do what it liked with uranium coming from any country. So why on earth the Government is confident in Euratom, I do not know. Let us look at some of the companies that have been involved in the scandals in Western Europe lately and which were involved in plans to reflag Australian uranium with US uranium, which would have been an international flag swap. I quote from a document put out by the World Information Service on Energy and produced in the Netherlands about Nukem and Transnuklear, two of the companies which have been identified and referred to in the documents presented to the Australian Government in the last few weeks. The document states: West German authorities, after closing down Nukem's daughter factory, Transnuklear (TN) in December 1987, have now also taken away Nukem's operating licence. Federal German Environmental Minister Topfer is denying any relation between closing down Nukem and an assumed delivery of plutonium to Pakistan. That is another issue, which I will not go into. The document continues: Indeed there were enough reasons to close down Nukem even without the assumed `plutonium-connection'. Some of the reasons given were as follows: Nukem had known about the Transnuklear bribe affair . . . for a long time, but had not informed officials. Its daughter company had been closed down earlier because it had been accused of bribery and corruption. Nukem knew about that but did not inform Euratom, which is meant to be the watchdog agency. The document continues: Radiated waste had been illegally manipulated at Nukem. During a transport from the Belgium nuclear research centre to the Nukem factory in Hanau, FRG two barrels of highly radioactive uranium disappeared. Nukem is unable to explain how they disappeared and where they are now. After Transnuklear and Nukem had been found to be much involved in a system of `bribes driven by criminal energy' it has to be closed. The prominent Green member of West German Parliament Otto Schily stated: `It has obviously already come so far that we have to be thankful to our government because they finally did what is right'. According to the German news magazine `Der Spiegel', state officials had known about this affair several months ago and should have ordered Nukem closed down earlier. Why on earth we should believe either Euratom or the companies with which it deals I cannot imagine. It is a foolish government that would continue to trust such companies when their track records are so abysmal. I turn to the analogy about banking used in the Minister's statement earlier this afternoon. The Minister talked about depositing $50 in the bank, saying that when one wants to withdraw one's $50 one does not expect to get exactly the same $50 back. Of course not. What a ridiculous notion! The point is that if one does not feel confident about the end use to which one's $50 will be put by a particular bank one does not deposit it in the first place. One does not put one's money into a questionable organisation. The reason why I chose to remove my personal accounts from the Westpac Banking Corporation was that Westpac was involved in promoting uranium mining. I chose a building society which builds houses in which people can live, something which is socially useful, as opposed to allowing banks to use one's money to do something which one believes is morally reprehensible. If the Government is not confident that Australian uranium-molecule for molecule, atom for atom-cannot be used for nuclear weapons it should not be engaged in the process in the first place. My analogy proves the point precisely in regard to the opponents of the Government's policy and to the whole question of flag swapping. If we cannot trace Australian uranium, which the Government has now admitted to, we should not be involved in selling it in the first place. As Senator Coulter has explained, there is no clear delineation between civil and military uses of nuclear technology. He showed the inextricable links between the civilian and military aspects. This is the premise on which the Government rests its case-that there is a distinction between the two. It is a false premise. The Government's case cannot be proved. The onus is on the Government to prove its claim, but it cannot do it. Nor has the Government said that the documents from Euratom are false or that the information about Nukem and Transnuklear and their plans for sidestepping guidelines is untrue. The Government has not disproved the documents which have been presented to it. It has merely tried to explain them away by lots of talk about paper shuffling. We know about the paper shuffling. It is exactly the point the peace movement has been making for years. Australian uranium can be accounted for on paper, but not in fact. Accounting for it on paper is beside the point. The only way to be sure that Australian uranium does not end up in nuclear weapons is to leave it in the ground so that it does not get into the nuclear cycle in the first place. No doubt we will hear from Senator MacGibbon in this debate that we should be producing fuel rods here in Australia to eliminate the need for worry about diversion or inadequate safeguards. He and others like him will say that that will be a great economic boon to Australia. It must be pointed out that there are many examples of the dangers of the nuclear fuel cycle at every stage-environmental and health hazards-and the end problem of waste disposal has not been canvassed and, I believe, is not even seriously considered by proponents of the industry. No amount of dollars can compensate for environmental and health hazards, and we should be looking much further than at a dollar's reward for involvement in what must be a very dangerous industry. The Australian Labor Party Conference that is coming up in Hobart in June no doubt will be debating this issue, and I hope that it will be a lively debate. Many people who support the Labor Party are extremely dismayed that the two promises made by the Labor Party about uranium have been broken. Finally, I repeat that the onus is on the Government to prove its claim that no Australian uranium enters the nuclear weapons fuel cycle. It has not proved that claim with this document; it cannot prove it at all. Therefore, the export of Australian uranium must stop. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(6.42) —The Senate is tonight debating a statement made by the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) on Australian nuclear safeguards. It is an excellent statement that stands secure against any attack from any quarter. We have to waste time on what should be a quite unnecessary exercise because of a series of allegations in a German sensationalist magazine. It was, in the terms of trade of the journalist, a beat-up. It was shamelessly misrepresented by the nuclear disarmers and that other far Left party, the Australian Democrats. They preyed, as they always do, on the basest of human emotions-the emotion of fear. Never for the Democrats, never for the disarmers, the nobility of reason-just the basest of fear. They say, `Hide in the corner or under the bed; do not cope with the problems of life'. The fact is, as the ministerial statement says, that no Australian uranium is going into nuclear weapons. It is a deliberate misrepresentation by the proponents of this story to create a fear that somehow or other Australian uranium is going into the nuclear weapon stockpiles of the world. As Senator Lewis said, the safeguards Australia has on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy are the strongest in the world. Those safeguards were introduced by previous Liberal-National Party governments and are so strong that they have not been improved or modified by the present Government. The analogy used by the Minister was that of a bank, despite Senator Vallentine's ridicule. I am delighted that she has taken her account away from Westpac. Having been a lifetime customer of the Wales, as it was, I would not like to have my account rubbing shoulders with Senator Vallentine's-I have more pride than that. Be that as it may, whether the uranium oxide is pooled in Europe before it is processed and the same amount is taken out for civil uses as goes in, is the auditing test that is applied. Senator Aulich made a very good point when he said that the argument had now taken a very sinister turn. Originally the nuclear disarmament people were saying that we were faced with corruption and deceit by the agencies in Europe handling Australian uranium, but the argument has now changed to one that is very much against flag swapping. The fact that if we put uranium in we do not know that we get precisely the same uranium atoms out is irrelevant, because we get out precisely the same amount of uranium as we put in for civil uses. The point raised by Senator Aulich was that, if one destroys the complex systems that are in place, one is left with a free-for-all. Senator Wood and Senator Vallentine have no concept of the massive volume of uranium that is being traded around the world. It runs into thousands of tonnes. At present it is all very carefully controlled and audited. If one breaks the system at present, instead of working intelligently to improve it and finetune it, there will be chaos. The international traffic in uranium will be completely out of control, a bit like the drug traffic-and we certainly do not want to see that happen. The world, as I have said before in this place, cannot unlearn nuclear physics. Nuclear physics gives humanity many benefits. It carries with it great risks when used in the armaments field, but in the civil field it has enormous benefits. At present one can say, without fear of challenge, that it is the only way that we are to lift the standard of living of the human race in the Third World countries to the standards that we take as normal. One cannot control the spread of nuclear technology to nuclear weapons just by putting a prohibition on the technology or the uranium involved. Uranium can be got from seawater. It occurs naturally in many countries. It might not occur in the richness of the ore bodies that we have in Australia, as we have the richest in the world, but most countries have some uranium. If one wants it, one can get it if one pays enough money. Similarly, all countries today have the intellectual resources in some of their people, with the expenditure of enough money, to develop nuclear weapons. So a prohibition on technology does not work. We have to look for other resources. In the last 20 or 30 years the world has developed three very good systems to control the spread of nuclear weapons and those techniques have been effective. The first and the most important is the political integrity of the individual countries and their governments-the will not to acquire nuclear weapons. That is the most important factor of all. The second important factor is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which there are now 134 signatory countries. This is the greatest treaty in the world today in the field of arms control. It can be claimed that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has stopped the horizontal spread of nuclear weapons in the world. I and probably most honourable senators in this chamber remember the time in the early 1960s when President Kennedy in the United States of America forecast that within 10 to 12 years 22 to 25 countries in the world would possess nuclear weapons. That has not happened. We still have the same five countries that officially possess nuclear weapons that existed when President Kennedy made that statement. We suspect that there are another five nuclear-armed powers in the world, but, if those suspicions are borne out, that takes us to 10. It is less than half the projection that was made in the early 1960s. The proof that those countries have not acquired weapons lies in the existence of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The third great safeguard that we have against the spread of nuclear technology to nuclear weapons is the safeguards systems of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a body derived by the disarmers and the Democrats as being utterly worthless. The IAEA is a very professional scientific body set up to control the nuclear industry. Ninety-five per cent-the overwhelming majority of signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-some 134 nations, have their peaceful nuclear facilities investigated by the IAEA. This is carried out on a very small budget for an international body-$150m in total, $50m for the safeguards. That need is expanding all the time because the use of nuclear power for generation is expanding, despite what the doomsday people say. In 25 years of careful scientific investigation not one case of cheating has been detected by the IAEA. That leads me to the first point that I made about the political integrity of those countries that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The nuclear generating world is very big. If one listened to some of the people who speak in this chamber, one would think that nuclear powerhouses were closing down all over the world. The truth is that in the last year alone 23 new stations were commissioned. There is a total of 417 stations operating around the world in at least 26 different countries, supplying about 16 per cent of all world power. In some highly developed countries, between 50 per cent and 70 per cent of electrical energy is being generated from nuclear generating sources. If there is one country that should be sensitive about nuclear power it is Japan. It is the only country in the world that has been subjected to the use of nuclear weapons. But Japan is a most enthusiastic and expanding user of nuclear energy, despite the cost to it. It is cheaper for it to buy oil or coal, particularly at the rate it is paying for coal from Australia. Even having regard to the environmental problems of being in an earthquake belt and the cost that that imposes on the building of generating stations, Japan is building more and more nuclear power stations. The misrepresentation that takes place in this chamber that nuclear power is going out of fashion fundamentally has its source in the fact that the world economies have faced a downturn in the last 10 to 12 years. It has been for that reason, and that reason alone, that new orders for nuclear powerhouses have not been signed. Demand for nuclear power has not increased. We do not need to go very far from Canberra to find, in my State of Queensland, a surfeit of electrical generating power. It has a thermal, coal fired generation system. The expectation 10 to 15 years ago when those orders were placed was that world economies were expanding at such a rate that there should be a great movement to build more electrical power stations. Electrical power is the heart and soul of an industrialised society. With the economic downturns that we have had since the early to mid-1970s the need has not increased. The prime basic reason that the world has to have nuclear power-and there are some very good reasons for it-of course, is the environmental argument. I find it amazing that people in this chamber who are so opposed to nuclear power talk about environmental issues in relation to rainforests, rock wallabies or things like that. The biggest environmental issue is the survival of the human race. The human race simply cannot survive if we go on burning fossil fuels. I will come back to that point in a moment. The other reason for nuclear power is that a lot of countries simply do not have the option of using their own fossil fuels. They have to import either oil or coal at great cost. They may as well pay a little extra if they can to get the self-sufficiency that nuclear generation brings. That leads me to one of the eternal problems of the Democrats and the nuclear disarmers-the sheer immorality of their argument; an argument that is based on selfishness and greed. So long as they are warm in their beds at night and well fed they do not give a damn about anyone else in the world. People like Senator Wood do not give a damn about the 100 million poor and starving in Bangladesh. Bangladesh, with its 100 million people, has an electrical generating capability of 1,000 megawatts. Sweden, with eight million people, has a generating capacity of 35,000 megawatts. Why can the people in Bangladesh not enjoy the standard of living that we enjoy in Australia? Why can they not have the standard of living that is enjoyed in Europe? They are entitled to that. If they are to get that standard of living they must have the ability to generate electrical power because without it there are no factories, no consumer goods, no lighting or heating for the homes and nothing to cook with. We simply have to recognise the need for power around the world if we are to lift the standard of living. The antagonists of nuclear power are prepared to see people in countries such as Bangladesh languish and die in poverty for generation after generation. Even in the developed world the effects of generating power from thermal sources are enormous. Acid rain has destroyed the lakes in the western part of the Scandinavian peninsula. Acid rain has destroyed huge tracts of forest in eastern Europe and in West Germany-all because people are burning coal or oil and producing sulphur dioxide which turns into sulphurous acid and precipitates with rain. Sulphur dioxide can be controlled if one is prepared to spend enough money by putting scrubbers in the exhaust systems in the stacks of the furnaces of thermal generating stations. But one cannot control carbon dioxide. It is very interesting to hear someone like Senator Coulter rattle off formulae concerning fluorocarbons that he has memorised before coming into the chamber. He talked about the way in which fluorocarbons diminish 1 or 2 per cent of the ozone layer. Why does he not deal honestly with the question? The honest approach to the greenhouse effect is that 50 per cent of the problems arise from carbon dioxide. There is no way of stopping the production of carbon dioxide when one burns oil or coal. The human race is choking to death because of the suffocation and pollution of the atmosphere from thermal stations. If honourable senators think it is bad at the moment they should look ahead another 10 years. By the turn of the century China has a proposition to increase its electrical generating capacity by 100,000 megawatts. Seventy per cent of that generation will be from coal fired and dirty coal fired sources. The effects of that Chinese expansion in electrical generating capacity will have a devastating effect on the quality of life of people in that country and in neighbouring countries. Not many people have died as a consequence of working in nuclear powerhouses. I cannot think of any. But in the mining of coal and in the drilling for oil there is a death penalty which runs into thousands a year. There is a death penalty amongst the citizens of the country from lung cancer, from the carcinogens and from the products of combustion. There is a thousand-fold increase in morbidity due to respiratory complaints such as asthma, of people who have to breath the air that is polluted by burning products such as hydrocarbons in the form of liquid-oil-or as coal. Looking ahead, the world cannot go on generating the power that it does from thermal sources. Nuclear energy is an inevitable part of it. What can we do about it in Australia? We can get back to those three things that I talked about. We should work constructively to develop the political will in countries not to use nuclear power for weapon sources. We can finetune and improve the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. While it is an excellent treaty it is nowhere near its full development. It requires the constant vigilance of all of us to develop it. We can increase the safeguards of the IAEA. I am very disappointed to learn that Australia-although it can find as much money as it wants for bodies such as the International Labour Organisation, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and other bodies that really do not help the Australian people much in any way-is paying only 65 per cent of what it should be paying towards the $50m which is allocated from the $150m IAEA budget to safeguards developments. Above all, we should embark on a public education campaign by pointing out the environmental disaster that is facing us as a world if we go on burning fuel willy nilly to run our factories and maintain our standards of living. Despite what the Democrats and the nuclear disarmers think, none of us want to go back to the caves and none of us are going back to the caves. We are going to maintain the standards of living we have, and therefore the obligation is inevitably upon us to find a way of doing it safely and cleanly without damage to the environment or to our health. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(7.00) —The uranium debate in Australia has been going for a long time now and no doubt will continue for many years to come. It is a debate that I am very familiar with because I have been on both sides of it. I started off in the uranium debate a decade ago being very prominently anti-uranium. The reason for that was quite simple: the constituents in my electorate in those days, 100 per cent of them, did not want any kind of mining on their land, but uranium happened to be found and so it was mined. My constituents elected me to represent them and I did so forcefully. Over 10 years the views of the constituents in my electorate have changed substantially, and so have mine, not in any knee-jerk way but in the course of examining the world situation rather than my own situation in the Northern Territory. One problem that I would have in being anti-uranium now is that I have to concede that I am simply not selfish enough, exclusive enough or elitist enough to be anti-uranium. That typifies for me these days, without any personal reflections, most of the people in Australia who are so virulently anti-uranium. The difficulty is that most modern economies are fuelled by electricity. Electricity would have to be rated-and I am sure that Senator Coulter would agree with this-as one of the most fundamental historical discoveries ever made by mankind for providing the energy which is in so much demand around the world. I am not a gung ho advocate of uranium; I never have been. I am in pretty much the same position as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on uranium. Bob Hawke has said, not in recent years but certainly many times publicly-and he has been very consistent on uranium for many years now-that he wished uranium had never been found. That is pretty much where I am at on uranium: I wish that it had never been found. I am happy to acknowledge, however, the historical fact that it was found and that it is used for the generation of electricity. I think that this has been a fairly uninspiring debate this afternoon in terms of the contributions from the people who have raised the subject of the so-called flag swapping. I thought the key speaker would arguably have been Senator Sanders. I thought his contribution was very light on indeed. There is a reason for that, and Senator MacGibbon has canvassed it. The reason is very simple: the debate has changed. It changed very rapidly in 24 hours. I think it has probably changed as a result of Senator Sanders finding out that most of his arguments had run out of steam. As Senator MacGibbon pointed out quite accurately, the debate did not start simply on flag swapping; it started on allegations that Australian uranium had been diverted into nuclear weapons. I saw Senator Sanders on television with his little dummies, his plastic bags, his flags and the paraphernalia that he set himself up with on television. The second stage of the allegations was that it had been swapped for `scrap', which was the word used. It had not been swapped for other uranium of equal quality; it had been swapped for worthless scrap. In fact, on television Senator Sanders had his plastic garbage pail full of garbage with the United States flag stuck in it. As we now know, these myths have been exploded very rapidly indeed. As always happens, those opposite rapidly did another side step and we have had a debate all afternoon on whether we can track individual atoms of Australian uranium through the system. As I and other senators pointed out to Senator Sanders, there is nothing new about that. That has been an integral part of the safeguards arrangements since they were first introduced into this Parliament many years ago. Why have we not heard about it before? Why has it suddenly arisen today? It has suddenly arisen today because the original allegations that were raised were not the allegations that were canvassed in debate here today. I waited in vain to hear Senator Sanders canvass the arguments about Australian uranium being swapped for scrap. That was his original performance. We never heard it today. I waited in vain. Senator Coulter was remarkably private about what he used his solar panel for. He kept on saying that he had a solar panel in South Australia which was an alternative source of energy and that we can close down nuclear power. He said half a dozen times, `I have a solar panel'; but, despite constant interjections, he refused to disclose what he used his solar panel for. Senator Coulter —I use it for light and radio. Senator COLLINS —Fine. I suggest to the honourable senator, with respect, that he contact the Japanese Government and suggest that it run a landline to South Australia and plug it into his solar panel, because 25 per cent of the entire Japanese generating capacity is in nuclear power. I hate referring to Senator MacGibbon's speech three times in one debate, but I am forced to. Senator MacGibbon has again canvassed the argument-and I make the point just as emphatically-that if there is one country on earth which has less reason to use nuclear fuel, it is Japan. If there is one country on earth which is technologically innovative, it is Japan. It is a good country to look at in terms of our selfish, arrogant, elitist attitude that people should not use nuclear power. When we are sitting in a temperate country with blue skies and sunshine every day and with 400 years of coal reserves in the ground, that is a very convenient argument for Australians to run! Japan is a good country to look at because it had two atomic bombs dropped on it not so long ago and undeniably is the most technically innovative country in the world; and it also just happens to be Australia's biggest customer. I would like to take a little more detailed look at Japan. As I said before, Japan generates from nuclear power 25 per cent of the electricity that fuels that giant economy. Nuclear power is important to Japan because the Japanese are energy import dependent, and the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry produced a major report entitled Nuclear Energy Vision-Perspectives of Nuclear Energy for the 21st Century, a report commissioned by the Japanese Government which was brought down in September 1986. In my view, it is required reading for any Australian seriously interested in uranium. Although it is a little presumptuous, I will quote from an unpublished paper on uranium mining, that I have written with particular reference to markets. It has not been published yet. I have written this paper in response to another paper which has been produced by my good friend, comrade and philosophical soul buddy, Peter Milton, over in the little green room! My paper, referring to the report commissioned by the Japanese Government, said: The Report is required reading for anyone with a serious interest in the nuclear energy debate. This is particularly so for Australians interested in gaining the perspective of a modern democratic economy in our own region; which is import dependant, without indigenous energy resources, and into the bargain is our most important customer for export commodities, (including uranium). As the relevance of the Report extends beyond Japan, a number of references from it are included below . . . There are other speakers who wish to contribute to this debate and I am anxious that they do so. I will ask leave of the Senate shortly to incorporate into Hansard what I originally was going to quote from more extensively. I will quote briefly from this report from Japan. The reason I do so is this: it annoys and infuriates me considerably when I hear people who are engaged in the uranium debate saying, as they constantly do, that we should not mine Australian uranium because it is bad for the Aboriginal people. That infuriates me because the Aboriginal people have signed two substantive agreements for major uranium mines on their land in the Northern Territory. Prior to the last Australian Labor Party National Conference, arguably the most prominent Aboriginal person in this country, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, Chairman of the Northern Lands Council, said in a public statement that the Northern Lands Council was considering taking the Labor Party to court to fight the decision of the Labor Party not to allow Koongarra and Jabiluka to proceed. It infuriates me to still hear people say `We know what is best for the Aboriginals'. As the case of the Japanese has been raised in the debate this afternoon, and as we have been told by honourable senators that nuclear power is no good for the Japanese, I thought it only fair that the Japanese should themselves be permitted to speak. I quote from the foreword of this document, which states: . . . the share of nuclear power in the nation's total electricity supply rose to 26% for the first time exceeding oil-fired thermal generation, which stood at . . . 25% . . . The development of electric power generation has ushered in an era of `Nuclear First, Oil Second'. In displacing oil as the primary energy source, nuclear power stands shoulder to shoulder with coal and natural gas in the generation of electricity. . . . Nuclear energy, as a quasi-domestic energy, is superior in both energy security and economy. A further paragraph states: . . . Nuclear power now provides one fourth of total generated electricity, exceeding that of oil-fired thermal generation, thus bringing Japan into the ``Nuclear First, Oil Second' era in electricity production. Nuclear power is now the principal energy alternative to oil in Japan . . . I do not think I can place it much more categorically myself. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in the Hansard that short extract from the report entitled Nuclear Energy Vision-Perspectives of Nuclear Energy for the 21st Century. Leave granted. The article read as follows- FOREWORD WHY SET OUT THE ``NUCLEAR ENERGY VISION'' NOW? 1. The general trend in setting perspectives (1) Japan established two records in fiscal 1985 which added an important page to Japanese nuclear history. First, the nuclear power plants registered a 76% capacity factor, the highest on record in this country. If Japan's periodic inspections are taken into consideration, this is close to 100 percent. Second, the share of nuclear power in the nation's total electricity supply rose to 26% for the first time exceeding oil-fired thermal generation, which stood at the equivalent of 25%. Taken together, these records show that Japanese nuclear power has now attained a stable position. It now ranks with coal and natural gas as a primary source in place of oil. The development of electric power generation has ushered in an era of ``Nuclear First, Oil Second.'' In displacing oil as the primary energy source, nuclear power stands shoulder to shoulder with coal and natural gas in the generation of electricity. 3. The significance of nuclear energy Nuclear energy, as a quasi-domestic energy, is superior in both energy security and economy. (1) Energy Security There is still a possibility that the international supply and demand for oil could again tighten in the mid- and long-term. Japan, being poor in domestic energy resources, has set its sights on nuclear power as a kernel energy source among oil alternatives. Compared with fossil fuel, it can produce higher energy per unit weight by the use of uranium fuel. Not only is it easy to transport and store this fuel, but a nuclear reactor can operate for at least a year on one fuel loading. Taking into consideration the time required for fuel fabrication, the fuel needed for a few years of operation is normally stored domestically. (Operating a 1,000 MW generating plant for one year requires 30 tons [3 trucks] of nuclear fuel, 1.3 million tons [7 large tankers] of oil, 2.2 million tons [22 large freighters] of coal and 1 million tons [16 large tankers] of natural gas.) (2) Economy Comparisons of generating costs differ from changes in oil prices and international exchange rates, but in the current situation, nuclear power is more economical than oil, natural gas and coal thermal generation. In addition, comparisons of generating costs throughout plant life show nuclear to be even more economical. (4.1) Nuclear power entering era of full-fledged commercial use . . . Nuclear power now provides one fourth of total generated electricity, exceeding that of oil-fired thermal generation, thus bringing Japan into the ``Nuclear First, Oil Second'' era in electricity production. Nuclear power is now the principal energy alternative to oil in Japan . . . CHAPTER 2 (3.2) Uranium Production, Supply and Demand (1) At present, the international supply and demand position of uranium is in a relaxed state. Barring a major supply disruption, the demand will be met until 2000. (2) It will be necessary, however, to develop new mines to meet the demand after 2000. Since uranium mines require a lead time of at least 10 years from the start of exploration to the start of production, exploration and development will need to begin fairly soon to ensure that future demand can be met. Senator COLLINS —I thank the Senate. The subject has already been canvassed at length by other senators of the current place in the world of nuclear power generation in terms of its acceptance. It has been said, rightly, that it currently produces 16 per cent of the total world production of electricity, and that capacity is growing at an average rate of 5 per cent per year. There are currently 417 operating nuclear reactors, as has been said quite accurately. Senator Coulter —It is still less than firewood. Senator COLLINS —Well, well! The protectors of the forests speak! That is where the debate falls down. I must say, through the Acting Deputy President, that I am desperate for someone to show me a realistic alternative to uranium, because I would like to see the industry closed down. Most of us would, I think, like to see an alternative source. But I point out the obvious thing to Senator Coulter. In the United States of America and in other countries around the world enormous sums of money have been expended by companies such as Westinghouse and General Electric, because they are not idiots, looking for alternatives. As I am sure Senator Coulter knows, they have built enormous solar complexes in California and wind generating capacities have been built around the world. But, unfortunately, they do not provide an economic substitute. One of the problems with Senator Coulter's solar panel is: what do we do when the sun don't shine! That would be a good song title, actually! That is the problem. It is easy in Australia, with our blue skies and sunshine, to talk about solar power. In the Northern Territory we make extensive use of it. One hotel-I stress one hotel-even experimented with solar powered air-conditioning. That is as far as it went. I commend the hotel for trying it, but it was not an economic success. In the Northern Territory we use solar panels as a source of domestic heating for water, which is highly successful, because we have a very high incidence of sunshine. But what do they do in the Northern Hemisphere, Senator? Senator Tate —What would you do in Melbourne? Senator COLLINS —I do not know what people would do in Melbourne. I think Ava Gardner had it right when she made On the Beach and said that Melbourne was a great place for a film about the end of the world. But in the Northern Hemisphere-and I have been there occasionally-the sun is not shining for most of the time. That is the great difficulty in applying the arrogant Southern Hemisphere attitude of some Australians to the Northern Hemisphere. They are entitled to their energy sources. Senator Coulter, Senator Wood and others who have contributed to this debate want them to freeze in the dark. We live in relative comfort but we want to impose that condition on a great many other people who have very little alternative. Many other countries do not have the extensive indigenous energy resources of this country, and they have to import most of their resources. Uranium provides an extraordinarily good alternative for them, and I will tell the honourable senator why. A 1,000-megawatt power station consumes three truck loads of nuclear fuel a year to run it. I am quoting again from my unpublished paper. That same power station requires 1.3 million tonnes of oil to produce the same amount of electricity, that is seven large tankers; 2.2 million tonnes of coal, that is 22 shipping freighters full; and one million tonnes, 16 tankers, of natural gas. Those are very relevant figures when we are talking about importing most of our energy resources per year. Another problem with this debate is that the people who advocate shutting down nuclear energy plants-and I wish we could-do not seem to have the slightest difficulty in promoting an endless expansion of thermal coal-fired power stations. I will tell honourable senators what that same 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station does for our environment every year. One coal-fired power station pumps into our atmosphere every year 7,800,000 tonnes of CO2, 40,000 tonnes of SO2, 9,500 tonnes of NO2 and 6,000 tonnes of dust. Let us have a debate in here one day, and I challenge Senator Wood and Senator Coulter to bring it on, about coal-fired power stations, and we will debate an alternative to them. I can tell Senator Coulter, with the greatest of respect, that it is not solar panels. One day it may be, but not yet. That is the problem. Senator Coulter —With pleasure. Senator COLLINS —Fine. I challenge the honourable senator to do so, and I will look forward to the debate, because I have been begging people to show me a viable alternative for the countries who use nuclear power. There is not one at the present time. The Northern Territory, with its tiny little Government and tiny little Budget, has to its credit carried out its own experimentation into alternative energy sources and we have in fact imported hybrid rigs using both solar and wind-powered electricity generation in an attempt to provide a very real solution to the problems of the provision of power for many isolated communities in the Northern Territory, which is currently provided by burning diesel oil. That must be the most tragic waste of diesel fuel one could possibly imagine. We burnt it in the Stokes Hill power station in Darwin for 20 years to produce power for the city of Darwin. What a tragedy, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of diesel fuel went up the spout. Fortunately the Northern Territory is lucky enough to have huge supplies of natural gas, and because of the vision of a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Ian Tuxworth, instead of a coal-fired power station, which was intended as an alternative for Stokes Hill, he stuck to his gas pipeline and we have got 1,500 kilometres of gas pipeline from Palm Valley providing Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin with an indigenous energy source. That is wonderful. We do not use nuclear power in the Northern Territory, we do not need to. But many other countries do, and we have not got the right to tell them that they cannot. The Australian Labor Party has commissioned two major reports into the uranium mining industry. Unfortunately, they have been almost forgotten. They have now got the status of being historical documents. The Labor Government of Gough Whitlam commissioned the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, the Fox Report, which produced 15,000 pages of transcript and examined hundreds of witnesses. It sat for ages and I did not think it was ever going to complete its work. I was involved in that exercise. Senator Coulter —So was I. Senator COLLINS —I am sure the honourable senator was. Many of us were. Despite the fact that it took all that evidence, let me tell honourable senators-and I knew those commissioners; it was a very caring and very exhaustive exercise on their part-that they finally came down with the decision that uranium mining should proceed in Australia. It was on the basis of the recommendations of the Fox report, commissioned by a Labor government, that it did. The second report into the uranium mining industry, entitled Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle was commissioned by the Hawke Labor Government. What did it say? It is worth having a look at it. I am sure Senator Coulter has read it. I will quote just briefly from the summary and recommendations of the Slatyer report, as it has become known. Paragraph 2.1.2 states: In most countries several primary energy sources are used for electricity generation, with fossil fuels, mainly coal, being the main component. However, the fraction of electricity generated by nuclear energy is growing rapidly in most countries which have nuclear power programs, as stations now under construction are completed and commissioned. Altogether, some thirty countries now have nuclear power stations in operation or under construction. The report goes on, in paragraph 2.1.5, to say: There have also been increasing concerns about the environmental effects of coal-fired power plants in particular and fossil-fuel fired plants in general. These concerns have focused particularly on the effects of acid rain caused by chimney emissions. This is now having serious biological and environmental repercussions. In the long term, the possibility of global climatic change caused by the increasing carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere resulting from fossil-fuel combustion could be an even more serious effect. I point out to Senator Coulter that a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station produces none of the emissions I cited earlier. The report goes on, and I would like the honourable senator to listen to this: If international tensions are to be reduced and the prospects of a peaceful global environment enhanced, the importance of national and international energy security cannot be over-emphasised. It is widely recognised that disruptions in the supply of resources of any sort have been a cause of international tension and, through human history, have led to war. For a modern society, no resources are more important than energy resources. Indeed the concern about the reliability of oil supplies, already referred to, was a major factor in the decision of many countries to turn to nuclear energy. I have much more to say, and I daresay there will be many more opportunities for the Senate to debate this matter. However, there are other speakers and I will finish in deference to them, to give them at least a few minutes. I conclude by saying that this debate has once again been a sham. It has had nothing whatever to do with flag swapping, and Senator Sanders was kind enough to tell the Senate that. It was simply another attempt to argue that Australia should close down its uranium industry. We are not in a position to do that. We are not in a position to preach to the rest of the world. We are not in a position, in my view, being just a little bit venal about it, to hand too many more bouquets to some of our major competitors, such as Canada. If we applied that same stupid logic to wheat, wool, beef, coal, zinc, copper, iron ore and a lot of our other export commodities that are also in plentiful supply around the world the country would be bankrupt in 24 hours. The debate this afternoon has, in fact, been a bankrupt debate. I hope the next time it is brought on there will be a little more substance to it. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(7.22) —I am pleased to join with my Northern Territory colleague Senator Collins in this debate this afternoon and to be very much associated with the remarks he has just made. The statement by the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) on Australian nuclear safeguards and Senator Aulich's contribution to the debate give us hope that at the Australian Labor Party's conference this year we will see a credible debate on the Australian uranium issue. If the calibre of the contributions of these speakers tonight can be reflected in that conference, it will demonstrate that there is indeed a place in Australia for the uranium industry. I share the concern of other senators when looking at the philosophical stupidity and bias of the nukes and the Australian Democrats. Their paranoia, their negativism, their fear, their lack of confidence and their complete lack of trust in the scientific establishment of Australia is appalling. It is timely to note that the Nuclear Disarmament Party enjoys a less than one per cent vote in Australia and the Democrats enjoy somewhere around 6 per cent. That is indicative of their standing on this issue. The Minister in his statement drew out a comparison to show how the uranium issue cannot be treated in the way it has been. I think he referred to a lack of understanding. The confusion that has been created and this failure to understand has all been compounded by the likes of Senator Sanders. He rather likes to look at uranium as something one puts into a Chinese laundry in the morning and expects to turn up in the evening in a laundered but exact, same, pure form. What absolute rubbish when we are talking about uranium. As for `Tinkerbell', Senator Vallentine really has got nothing better than biscuit tin economics. Senator Wood —I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I think we ought to have a debate on the issues and not have the participants in the debate insulted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Powell) —Senator Tambling, as a point of order has been raised, that is considered to be a reflection on a member of the Senate. Would you please withdraw the comment? Senator TAMBLING —I am happy to withdraw. I wish to look at some of the issues in this debate in the time given to me, although I would easily have surrendered that time had Senator Collins wanted to continue in the frame of mind that he was in earlier. In the Northern Territory we have the resources, we have the deposits and we have the support of probably 90 or 95 per cent of the Territory's population. The Aboriginal community of the Northern Territory is strongly behind the full nuclear cycle and the full development of this industry. If anyone needs to talk about that he should come to the Territory and canvass those issues. We need to take it many steps further. The debate should now proceed, into the area of nuclear processing plants, conversion and enrichment plants, and nuclear waste disposal proposals. These things should be put onto the debating agenda. These are the issues that Australia should now look at, and this statement gives us the timely opportunity to say, yes, if we had the full control of the nuclear cycle it would give us even more credibility and more control. That is what it is all about. I challenge the Australian Labor Party to review at its annual conference this year the three mines policy and the negativism that that produces. It needs to be thrown out of the door. There is certainly a contribution to be made in the Northern Territory through the development of Jabiluka and Koongarra. There is no reason why they ought not be able to go into the marketplace and test that particular stage. Senator Collins referred to the 1983-84 Slatyer report on Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. I would also commend the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of 31 May 1984. That was an important contribution and should be reviewed alongside Senator Cook's statement today. The Slatyer report recommended Australia's participation in the nuclear fuel cycle, in addition to uranium mining and milling. The report was accepted by the Commonwealth Government at that time, with the exception of the nuclear fuel cycle recommendations. They should now be brought forward and reviewed in the light of where we are at. The Northern Territory Government has indicated its support by approaching the Federal Government, offering to become involved in all aspects of the nuclear processing industry, including reprocessing and nuclear waste disposal. This is the agenda. It is where we are at. The effectiveness of the Australian safeguards agreements needs to be a continual influence on Australia's presence in the marketplace. That is where we certainly need to be putting our resources. We need to be involved. As Senator MacGibbon pointed out earlier in the debate, it is a crucial matter. Senator Wood interjected at one stage, `You can't eat electricity'. I venture to say that that was an idiotic and stupid statement. Senator Wood —Can you eat electricity? Senator TAMBLING —One certainly cannot eat it but one cannot live without it. In today's modern world, the only hope for the underprivileged and undernourished in Third World areas lies in electricity, and electricity can be properly and economically generated to provide them with food, to provide them with resources and to provide them with a standard of living that is compatible with that of a more affluent society, only by the full development of the nuclear cycle, properly controlled and with safeguards fully in place. The safeguards that Australia has developed were developed by the Fraser Government. They were put in place; they were openly negotiated. Of course this issue is controversial. There is nothing wrong with controversy but the bottom line is not to chuck the system out, not to change everything and go back to living on wood fuels as Senator Coulter would have us do. Even he, of course, showed his own hypocrisy today in the way in which he approached that particular issue. We should be able to look to the whole future of the nuclear industry and where it is going positively, without fear in the community and without undermining confidence and trust in our scientific establishment or in the relationships that we enjoy with our international partners and colleagues on this issue. It is certainly a matter that needs deep philosophical debate, and I am not frightened of that. As Senator Collins said, it was pathetic in the debate today that no-one touched on those particular issues, that no-one looked at the resources, the development or the future. The PRESIDENT —It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(7.30) —Tonight I bring to the attention of the Senate an exchange of correspondence between 31 members of the Senate and the Soviet Embassy. On 19 February this year 31 coalition senators wrote, via the Soviet Ambassador in Canberra, to Mr Mikhail Gorbachev urging him not only to allow the peoples of the Baltic states-Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia-to peacefully honour their national independence days but also to take all necessary measures to guarantee that they did not become targets of state sponsored harassment as a result of these commemorations. The letter from the 31 senators also included the reminder to Mr Gorbachev that the Soviet presence in the Baltic states was in direct violation of the peace treaties of 1920 which the Soviet Union concluded with the governments of those countries. We have now received an official response from the Soviet Embassy in the form of a letter from Mr Zemskov, the Minister-Counsellor at the Soviet Embassy in Canberra, on behalf of the Russian Government. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard that reply, together with the letter written to Mr Gorbachev and my covering letter to the Ambassador. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- EMBASSY OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS 78 Canberra Avenue, Griffith, A.C.T. 2603 Telephone 95 9033 Senator Jim Short The Senate Parliament House Canberra 11 March 1988 Dear Senator, My Ambassador, Dr E. M. Samoteikin, asked me to acknowledge receipt of your letter forwarding a message addressed to M. S. Gorbachev, which has been passed over to Moscow. May I tell you that we asked parliamentarians in Estonia and Lithuania to answer this message. At the same time I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that all three Baltic Soviet Socialist Republics-Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia-are sovereign republics within the USSR and joined the Soviet Union in accordance with the wishes of their people. The Baltic Republics take an equal and active part in the formulation and conduct of the Soviet Union's domestic and foreign policies and their citizens exercise equal rights together with all other Soviet people that are guaranteed by the Constitution of the USSR and the Constitutions of each of the Republics. I hope you will take these facts into account and will realize that all concerns expressed in your letter are unfounded and contradict present-day realities. Sincerely yours, Z. ZEMSKOV Minister-Counsellor PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE Senator Jim Short Liberal Senator for Victoria Shadow Minister for Home Affairs 19 February 1988 His Excellency Dr E. M. Samoteikin Ambassador Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 78 Canberra Avenue Griffith, A.C.T. 2603 Your Excellency, Enclosed is a letter sent by 31 Members of the Australian Senate to the Honourable Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR, urging him to allow the Lithuanian and Estonian people to peacefully honour their national independence days and to take all necessary measures to guarantee that they do not become targets of state-sponsored harassment as a result of these commemorations. I hereby request that you forward the attached letter to Mr Gorbachev. Thanking you in anticipation. Yours sincerely, JIM SHORT Senator for Victoria AUSTRALIAN SENATE Canberra, A.C.T. 19 February 1988 The Honourable Mikhail S. Gorbachev General Secretary of the Communist Party The Kremlin, Moscow, USSR Dear Mr Gorbachev, This year marks the 70th anniversary of the restoration of Lithuanian independence and the establishment of independent nation-states in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. We have received reports that citizens of Estonia and Lithuania intend to honour their independence days which occur this month, with public ceremonies. From a series of peaceful demonstrations which took place in the Baltic States last year, we know that national feelings run strong and deep among the Baltic peoples. This was made especially clear to us and to people throughout Australia when, on August 23, 1987, some 10,000 Balts gathered in the streets of Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius to peacefully commemorate the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocols, which led to the occupation of the Baltic States by the USSR. Prior to that August demonstration, we believe that many wrote to you urging you to prevent any official disruption of those peaceful gatherings. We were encouraged by the fact that the August demonstrations were allowed to proceed, and hope your government will similarly respect the rights of the Lithuanian and Estonian people to mark their independence days in whatever peaceful manner they choose. In Lithuania, we understand that 200 Lithuanians have written a letter informing you of their intention to commemorate their independence day on February 16 with flower-laying ceremonies at various sites of historical and national significance in Vilnius and Kaunas. The letter appealed for your assurances that the ceremonies be allowed to proceed unimpeded. However, one report reaching the west indicates that Soviet authorities may move to block these peaceful ceremonies. We have also learned that 41 Lithuanian citizens, including 10 piests, have issued an appeal to other Lithuanians to join them in commemorating their Independence Day at religious services to be held in churches throughout Lithuania. In the past, we have been greatly concerned over the official harassment and abuse directed against individuals who have participated in public demonstrations. Indications are that those who participate in this year's commemorations may face similar reprisals. We are particularly concerned over the January 29 `Pravda' report stating that Communist Party leaders in Lithuania had decided to intensify their efforts against `bourgeois nationalism and clerical extremism''. We are also disturbed by the news that Ms Nijole Sadunaite, a leading Lithuanian dissident and demonstration organizer, was assaulted on the streets of Vilnius on February 6 in an attempt to intimidate her. We therefore write to you today to urge you not only to allow the Lithuanian and Estonian people to peacefully honour their national independence days, but also to take all necessary measures to guarantee that they do not become targets of state-sponsored harassment as a result of these commemorations. In your November, 1987 speech marking the 70th anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution, you referred to the `enormous and unforgivable' crimes of Stalin, and you asserted that Soviet foreign policy under your leadership has remained in concert with the `basic course worked out and charted by Lenin'. As you know, when Lenin was at the helm of the Soviet Union's Communist party, the USSR signed peace treaties in 1920 with each of the three Baltic States, renouncing claims to their territory in perpetuity. Two decades later, Stalin violated this solemn commitment. We sincerely hope that the course set by Lenin will be the one which guides your responses to the Baltic peoples as they seek to peacefully express their aspirations for human rights and self determination. Sincerely, Senators: Short, Stone, P. Baume, Reid, Puplick, Newman, Messner, MacGibbon, Hill, Panizza, Walters, Vanstone, Parer, Teague, Watson, Archer, Calvert, Chapman, Chaney, Crichton-Browne, Lewis, Bishop, Knowles, Brownhill, Bjelke-Petersen, Boswell, McGauran, Tambling, M. Baume, Hamer, Harradine. Senator SHORT —The response from the Minister-Counsellor, Mr Zemskov, makes three key points. Indeed, firstly, he says that our letter was forwarded to Mr Gorbachev. Secondly, he says that `we'-presumably the Soviet Embassy-asked parliamentarians in Estonia and Lithuania to answer the message. He also states: All three Baltic Soviet Socialist Republics . . . sovereign republics within the USSR and joined the Soviet Union in accordance with the wishes of their people . . . take an equal and active part in the formulation and conduct of the Soviet Union's domestic and foreign policies and their citizens exercise equal rights together with all other Soviet people that are guaranteed by the constitution of the USSR and of each republic. The third point made by Mr Zemskov in response to our letter is that all concerns expressed in our letter are `unfounded and contradict present day realities'. On the first point, let there be no doubts at all about the misuse of the language by Mr Zemskov. There are no real parliamentarians in the Soviet Union. How could there be when opposition parties are outlawed and when there are no genuine elections? Mr Zemskov's claim that our concerns contradict present day realities is contemptuous. What are the present day realities in the Baltic states? Recently I-and other members of this Parliament-were fortunate to meet and have frank discussions with a young Latvian freedom fighter who was expelled from the Soviet Union in July last year after spending 12 months in a labour camp. His crime was `anti Soviet activities'; that is, he was involved in peaceful demonstrations for Latvian independences. His story is one that must be told because it is a first hand account of the contemporary situation in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Mr Silaraups, who had just turned 23 and had been involved in freedom fighting and fighting for the independence and basic human rights in Latvia since the age of 15, painted a graphic picture of how in 1987 Soviet authorities continued to stifle Latvia's identity by suppressing its culture and wiping out its history. It is still the case that the Soviet authorities in Latvia insist that Russian be the official language of Latvia. Despite this, native Latvians still speak Latvian amongst themselves. Indeed, a number of Latvians, particularly the young, have refused to speak any Russian at all. In education as well there is discrimination and suppression. In Latvian schools, Russian is the first language taught. Whilst Latvians must learn Russian, Russians in Latvia need not learn Latvian. At the tertiary level, degrees or diplomas may be obtained only if exams are taken in Russian. This blatant discrimination against the Latvian people is aimed at undermining opposition to Russian ideology. It allows for no freedom of thought or expression. Mr Silaraups indicated that glasnost, to date, had not brought any real changes within the system. Whilst authorities have ceased the longstanding and notorious practice of imprisoning political dissidents, and people are in general allowed to speak more openly, they are in fact keeping a detailed record of who is saying what and of their movements. Recent reports of Soviet police and militia wielding rubber truncheons breaking up a demonstration in Kaunas, Lithuania's second largest city, give the impression that the situation has worsened since Silaraups was expelled later last year. Other recent reports of the suppression of demonstrations, and violent threats of intimidation in Tartu, Estonia's university city, and in Tallinn, Estonia, are further evidence that promises of democratisation have been forgotten. The notorious camp 36-1 where several Ukrainian Helsinki monitors have died has been replaced by a new compound, camp 35. But nothing has really changed, only the camp's location. The guards, inmates and personnel remain the same. In the words of Nadia Svitlychna, head of the Ukrainian Helsinki Groups External Representation, in her letter to New York Times reporter A. M. Rosenthal earlier this year: As before, Mart Niklus and Ivan Sokulsky sit in solitary confinement cells, Petro Ruban, Hryhoriy Prykhodko, Boris Romashov and Mikhail Alekseye sit together in one cell. I should also mention here that his illness-virulent tuberculosis-endangers the lives of his cell mates. Given the facts surrounding the notorious camp 36-1, Mr Rosenthal's observation that, rather than represent any genuine reform, the closure of the camp may have more to do with the prospect of a visiting Western delegation to inspect the camp four weeks later `so Moscow can keep its ban on foreigners inspection; there's nothing left to inspect' has much logic. Next year it will be 50 years since nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, whereby the two powers, then allies, agreed to divide the Baltic states between them in the approaching European war. This was done without the knowledge of the Baltic people themselves. Despite treaties to the contrary, in 1940 the Soviet tanks moved into the Baltic states. In 1940-41 was to be a reign of terror for the Baltic peoples. The mass deportations began during the night of 14 June 1941 in appalling conditions. The human beings involved were officially regarded as merchandise. It is estimated that in the first year alone of Soviet occupation, 1940-41, about 60,000 Estonians, 34,000 Latvians and 75,000 Lithuanians were deported to Siberia or killed, especially the intelligentsia. Australia, Britain, the United States of America and most other Western countries have not recognised the illegal annexation, or de jure incorporation, of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union. This is not a case of anti-Sovietism; it is a case of international law. The Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was then, and remains today, a violation of the rights of sovereign states. The Baltic nationalists base their case for independence not only on the illegality of Soviet occupation but also on the issue of basic human rights. At least 10 per cent of the population of the Baltic states-more than 600,000 people-perished during the brutal annexation, and ever since the Baltic peoples have suffered under the totalitarian and authoritarian Soviet regime. Their nationalistic feeling was first expressed publicly in 1979 when a group of 45 Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians signed a declaration on the fortieth anniversary of the Hitler-Stalin pact, demanding independence for their republics. Many of those 45 signatories went to gaol, and at least one, Juri Kukk, subsequently died from force-feeding during a hunger strike. The extent of the Soviet effort to expunge languages, traditions and cultures in the Baltic states has been phenomenal. This process of Russification was described by former English diplomat Kenneth Benton, at the tribunal organised by the Baltic World Conference in 1985, in the following way: There was to be no semblance of real autonomy for the Baltic peoples; even their Communist Party officials are now in many cases Russians who do not speak the local language. Education has been to a large extent Sovietised, including enforced membership of the Octobrist and Komsomol organisations and subsequent military training; the teaching of Baltic languages is being gradually eliminated and Baltic literature is harshly censored or banned altogether. There is widespread religious persecution. Russians have been brought in to occupy all the important positions in industry and government. In agriculture, where collectivisation was imposed with total disregard for national traditions, tens of thousands of small farmers have been deported . . . This is what the coordinated demonstrations last year in Riga, Vitrius and Tallinn were about-namely, a deep commitment to the restoration of independence and human rights in the Baltic states. On 17 March there was in the House of Representatives an important debate on the Helsinki Accord, an international agreement aimed at guaranteeing human rights and signed by some 33 European states, together with Canada and the United States. In the course of this debate, the House honoured Mrs Oskana Meschko, a very brave lady in her eighties who has dedicated her life to the pursuit of human rights in the Soviet Union. Last year, on the twentieth anniversary of the formation of the Helsinki Monitor Group, Senator Harradine and I put on the Notice Paper a notice of motion in relation to the Helsinki Accord. I hope that the Senate will soon have the opportunity to debate the Accord when considering that motion. Mrs Meschko is now visiting Australia. A few weeks ago several of us had the pleasure of meeting her and of welcoming her to our country. We applaud in great admiration her example in fighting for human rights in the Soviet Union. She is one of two human rights workers from countries under Soviet rule to have visited Australia in recent months. The public image that the Soviet Union has been working at since Mr Gorbachev was elected by the party-not, of course, by the Russian people-is one of openness, communism with a human face-glasnost. Such propaganda has evidently been successful. Western media has reported very positively on the policy of glasnost. However, eyewitness accounts of the situation in Latvia like those of Roland Silaraups, official lies from the Soviet Embassy here in Canberra in response to 31 senators of this Parliament, and recent reports of brutal suppression of nationalist demonstrations made me less than optimistic about any genuine improvements in the USSR. Glasnost may turn out to be no more than a propaganda stunt to impress the West and, thereby, gain the fruits of the West's magnificent economic performance relative to the Soviets, rather than genuine reform. I fear that it may be more in accord with Lenin's recipe in his book Useful Fools, for disarming the enemy-in this case the West and what we understand by freedom and liberty. In that book Lenin wrote: When a country is selected for attack, we must first set up before the youth of that land a mental barrage which will forever prohibit the possibility of that youth being moulded into an armed force to oppose our invading armies. This can most successfully be done through creating `war horror' thought and by teaching pacifism and non-resistance. It will be found that powerful organisations of non-communists can be created for this purpose, particularly with the aid of liberal-minded ministers, professors, and lecturers. The message for those of us lucky enough to live in a country such as Australia, where our basic human rights are guaranteed, is clear. It is our duty, by virtue of our sense of humanity, to fight on behalf of those who live under repressive communist regimes-for the sake of those people, and indeed for our sake and the sake of all people in the free world. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.47 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 121) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: What was the function or functions, or the other commitments, which the Minister had which prevented him/her from attending the official presentation of the Address-in-Reply to His Excellency the Governor- General on 5th November 1987. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I was unable to attend this presentation as I was involved with duties relating to my Ministerial responsibilities. (Question No. 149) Senator Bjelke-Petersen asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) Has any proposal been made to the Federal Government that areas in Australia listed with the World Heritage Commission be offered as collateral for a World Conservation Bank; if so, what is the Federal Government's position. (2) Are State Governments being notified and consulted about such a proposal. (3) Are the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society tax-funded bodies. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The simple answer to this part of the question is no. While the answer is simple, the origin of the question raises serious concerns. I find it somewhat alarming that the Honourable Senator's questions are almost word for word those quoted in the October 1987 issue of Enterprise, the organ of the Institute of Economic Democracy which is a specialist division of the Australian League of Rights. It also concerns me greatly that a body such as the League of Rights for reasons totally unrelated to conservation issues is working itself into this debate and disseminating propaganda in Queensland and other Australian States. (2) Not applicable. (3) Both groups have received funds under the annual grants to voluntary conservation organisations program. These grants are, in the main, for administrative purposes, but some may be allocated for special projects and all are acquitted annually in the normal way. (Question No. 162) Senator Coates asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 16 December 1987: (1) Do the guidelines for National Estate Grants require an equal distribution amongst built, natural and Aboriginal projects. (2) What are the proportions actually granted in each of the last 10 years, and what are the reasons for any major discrepancies from an equal distribution. (3) Are any changes contemplated in this aspect of the guidelines or in the actual distribution of grants. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) While an equal distribution of funds between the built, natural and Aboriginal cultural components is the objective of the National Estate Grants Program, it is not a formal requirement. Under the guidelines for the Scheme the criteria specify inter alia that `a reasonable proportion of grants' is to be distributed between these elements. The final distribution of funds within a State is a product of the range, quality and total quantum of applications received for that year. (2) Over the past ten years, the annual allocation for the ``built'' component has varied between 65% and 80% of funds under the program, the ``natural'' component between 10% and 22%, and the ``Aboriginal'' component between 6% and 18%. The trend in recent years has been towards more funding for ``natural'' and ``Aboriginal'' projects and less for the ``built'' component. The reasons for the variation from an equal distribution are that approximately 80% of all applications are for ``built'' projects, 12% for ``natural'' projects and 8% for ``Aboriginal'' projects. The final selection of projects is based on the quality of the applications, rather than selecting projects simply to achieve an equal distribution between the three components. As 80% of all applications are for ``built'' projects, it is inevitable that there have been a greater percentage of ``built'' projects funded under the program. (3) A review of the National Estate Grants Program has recently been undertaken by my Department. It is possible that as a result of this review changes may be made to the guidelines and the procedures for assessment of applications. (Question No. 167) Senator Sanders asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 18 December 1987: (1) Why did the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry hold a secret meeting with counsel of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission (TFC) on Wednesday 9 December 1987. (2) Is it appropriate that the Commission of Inquiry should privately negotiate the release of data from the TFC in exchange for an early report on qualifying areas by the Commission. (3) When did these negotiations begin. (4) Why did a member of the Commission's legal staff, who with Commissioner Helsham was present at the meeting with counsel of the TFC, later deny any knowledge of that meeting when questioned by conservationists. (5) Was it appropriate for the Commission to offer the Combined Environment Groups (CEG) a private meeting with the Commissioners after the Commission became aware that the CEG had found out about the meeting referred to in (1). (6) Is it appropriate for the Commission to engage a former Chief Commissioner of the TFC as a private consultant to prepare a secret report on the reservation of tall eucalypt forests for the Commission. (7) Have the Commissioners held private meetings or discussions with representatives of Tasmania's forest industries. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows: (1) to (7) The Combined Environment Groups raised these points in the Federal Court appeal concerning the Interim Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. They were not pursued by the Groups or the Court. I have provided to the honourable senator a copy of the relevant court orders and the 23 page Reasons for Judgement by Justice Burchett on 19 February 1988 in which these and other matters are dealt with. The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry was established as an independent body by Act of the Parliament. Its procedures are for it, and not the Government, to determine, and this is explicitly recognised in the Act. Should the honourable senator have any further queries about the procedures of the Commission of Inquiry, I suggest he take them up direct with the Presiding Member or Secretary of the Commission. (Question No. 168) Senator Sanders asked the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, upon notice, on 18 December 1987: (1) Is the Minister aware of a report in the Age of 3 December 1987, entitled ``BHP attacked over Kakadu mineral search''. (2) Has the Minister ordered an inspection of the Coronation Hill site in response to Wilderness Society statements that BHP exploration activities at the site have caused significant environmental damage; if so, what damage did that inspection reveal. (3) What action has the Minister taken to stop further environmental damage at Coronation Hill. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) I visited the Conservation Zone on 21 January 1988 and inspected activities at Coronation Hill. Two access authorities have been issued by the Minister for Administrative Services to BHP Gold Mines Ltd., concerning its operations at Coronation Hill. The issue of the authorities removes any doubts as to the legality of the work being undertaken at Coronation Hill. One of the authorities will allow exploration work to continue on pre-existing leases held by BHP. The other will permit access to those parts of the Kakadu Conservation Zone outside the leases so that work can be undertaken for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Coronation Hill project. Both authorities are subject to stringent environmental terms and conditions to ensure protection of the natural and cultural values of the area. BHP's activities in the Kakadu Conservation Zone are being monitored to ensure that they are not affecting the water quality of the South Alligator River or the nearby Kakadu National Park. The Supervising Scientist has commenced a program of water quality and aquatic fauna sampling along the South Alligator River and officers of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service patrol both the Park and the Conservation Zone. The Government will ensure that the environmental conditions attached to the access authorities are enforced. (Question No. 232) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, 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 Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Nil. (2) 28 (3) 1 Boilermaker; 1 Carpenter; 4 Electricians; 10 Fitter and Machinists; 1 Instrument Maker; 1 Motor Mechanic; 3 Plumbers; 1 Refrigeration Mechanic; 6 Sheet Metal Workers. (4) 4 in ACT; 9 in NSW; 1 in Tasmania; 14 in Victoria (Question No. 248) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 February 1988: Can the Minister provide the details of how many employees of the Department are unattached (to a substantive position within the Department). Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: On 15th March 1988 there were 203 unattached officers in this Department. 1789