Friday, 22 April 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, will be absent today and that questions that would normally be directed to the leader should be directed to me. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That paragraph 6 of Notice No. 2 standing in the name of the Leader of the Government be agreed to namely: (6) Petitions-Procedure for Presentation: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the procedure for the presentation of Petitions be as follows: (1) A Senator wishing to present a petition shall lodge it with the Clerk. (2) The Clerk shall make an announcement in respect of petitions lodged with him, indicating in respect of each petition the Senator who presents it, the number of signatures, and the subject matter of the petition. (3) Every petition so presented shall be deemed to have been received by the Senate unless a motion, moved forthwith, that a particular petition be not received, be agreed to. (4) The terms of the petitions presented shall be printed in Hansard. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Federal Government funding to the performing arts through the Australia Council has declined since 1974 by 39% in real money terms. 2. Unless this funding is substantially increased in forthcoming federal budgets, many companies will be forced to cease operations and the performing arts will eventually wither and die. 3. A healthy and variegated performing arts scene is vital to any country that claims to be civilised. 4. The people of Queensland, particularly, value the performing arts and believe that without them, their lives would be significantly impoverished. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will substantially increase funding to the performing arts and will not allow the decline to continue at the alarming rate that has characterised the past seven years from 0 .12% of total government outlays in 1974-75 to 0.07% in 1981-82. And that the present single line appropriations are rescinded and the distribution of federal arts funding is left in the hands of the Australia Council. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from six citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the plan by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to withdraw public telegram facilities and downgrade telegram standards by: 1. planning to withdraw the 24 hour telegraph service at the Chief Telegraph Office in each capital city and in Canberra and Darwin 2. closing country telegraph offices 3. increasing telegram charges whilst downgrading the service 4. withdrawing telegram operating facilities from a large number of suburban and country post offices 5. generating serious delays in telegram delivery by reducing standards of service through centralisation of the network and reduction of operating and delivery staff will reduce an available means of communications in commercial enterprise, deny the opportunity for people of Australia to make contact with family and friends in times of emergency, and civil or natural disasters, particularly for the 30% of Australians who are not telephone subscribers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take measures to ensure the maintenance of an efficient, effective public telegram service to meet the needs of the Australian people socially, publicly, commercially and in times of emergencies and civil or natural disasters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 14 citizens), Bolkus (from 127 citizens), Button ( from 36 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 16 citizens), Chipp (from 31 citizens) , Jessop (from 59 citizens) and Lewis (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the film series produced by Film Australia in conjunction with the Family Planning Association for use in Australian schools ''Let's Talk About It'' is regarded in some Australian States as suitable only for in-service work with experienced teachers; That its companion series ''Growing Up'' presents a one-sided advocacy of behaviour which is morally controversial; That the films demonstrate serious deficiencies on educational as well as moral grounds. Your petitioners therefore pray: That action be taken to ensure that these films be withdrawn from use in Australian schools; That no more funding be made available to Film Australia for production of sex- education films in conjunction with the Family Planning Association; That an examination of the activities of the Family Planning Association in health and human relations studies in Australian schools be undertaken at an early date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 66 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 Australian people have an irreplaceable heritage-built and natural- that is decaying before their eyes. 2. That the 1982-83 Federal Budget is the eighth in a row in which there has been no increase in funding for the preservation of Australia's heritage. 3. That the States and Territories were granted a total of only $2.2 million for an urgent program of works that is awaiting at least $20m to complete and that most of these projects will be in ruins before enough money is available. 4. That there are conservation projects in Queensland alone valued at tens of millions of dollars which have been postponed or abandoned due to lack of funding and that $3 million is needed immediately to complete restoration of properties owned by The National Trust of Queensland. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government approve an urgent supplementary grant of $800,000 for 1982-83, plus a forward commitment for a total allocation of $8 million in the 1983-84 Budget. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 838 citizens). To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That since 1788 discrimination has existed in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of sex, race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy and/or sexual preference; That since 1788 such discrimination has been accepted and promoted by Australian laws and practices, particularly in the provision of work, in appointment to jobs, in promotion to positions of authority and lucrative incomes, in the provision of goods and services, in the provision of accommodation and generally in relation to political, economic and social institutions of power. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That adequate and appropriate laws be immediately formulated and passed through the Parliament to render unlawful discrimination in all areas over which the Commonwealth holds power, namely, in employment of all persons in the Commonwealth Public Service and employed in Commonwealth Statutory Authorities and other bodies, in the provision of accommodation and the provision of goods and services under Commonwealth jurisdiction and also in all areas over which legislation for the Australian Capital Territory would be valid. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 15 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 US, Australian and allied forces used huge amounts of toxic chemicals for military purposes, such as Agents Orange, Blue and White, in Vietnam during the war there; (2) many of these chemicals were, and are, known to be highly dangerous to human health; (3) Australia's Vietnam veterans and their families are suffering many severe problems which may be due to their exposure to these chemicals; and (4) the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia has been seeking a Royal Commission for well over two years to ensure an independent investigation of these matters. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will (a) express its support for the Royal Commission; and (b) urge the Federal Government to establish the Royal Commission immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bolkus (from 34 citizens) and by Grimes (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: 1. Since the Australian Whale Protection Act 1980 provides for the banning of importation into Australia of all whale byproducts, and 2. the Prime Minister has stated that he and his Government support the international banning of whaling, 3. then consistent with (1) and (2), this Government should immediately legislate to ban the importation of all marine mammal byproducts, including the harp seal of Canada, and 4. through the Australian delegate in the United Nations General Assembly, the Prime Minister should state his Government's support for an international ban on the slaughter of any marine mammal for commercial reasons. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that consistent with legislation on whaling, this Government should ban the importation of marine mammal byproducts and support an international ban on slaughter of any marine mammal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from six citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth: That citizens of Western Australia view with great alarm the removal of Director of the Office of Child Care and fear for the future of that office and the children's services programme which it administers. We believe the Office of Child Care to be inappropriately placed within the Department of Social Security, where children's services are in competition with welfare sevices for the aged, disabled, and other such groups. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take every step as necessary to obtain immediate withdrawal of the Office of Child Care from the Department of Social Security and the establishment of a Children's Commission. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Crichton-Browne (from 100 citizens), Durack (from 25 citizens) and Withers (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Australia has no national monument to commemorate the courage and the endeavours of our early pioneers and explorers. 2. In 1976, the National Council of the Stockman's Hall of Fame and Outback Heritage Centre was formed to co-ordinate efforts to build this monument. 3. A site was selected at Longreach in western Queensland in 1978 and a design by Sydney architect, Feiko Bouman, was approved two years later. 4. The early construction of a Hall of Fame at Longreach will be a fitting pioneer monument as well as a major tourist attraction, boosting the depressed rural economy of western Queensland and providing the employment that is so badly needed there to stem the population drift to the cities. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will invest whatever funding is necessary to enable the immediate construction of the Stockman's Hall of Fame and to enable researchers to collect the information, material and relics quickly, before they deteriorate or disappear forever, so that Australia can have a showcase for our national heritage and an inspiration to our national pride. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 11 citizens). The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth our concern that: 1. The Income Tax Assessment Act (the Act) and its administration is inadequate in providing retirement benefits for employees in private enterprise; 2. The Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) denies deductions necessary to index retirement pensions; 3. Deductions for the self-employed and employed are inadequate; 4. The Commissioner has exercised his discretion improperly by negating a choice the Act allows on investment in Government Securities; 5. The Commissioner's constant alterations to guidelines and lack of communication has created great uncertainty. 6. The Commissioner is acting arbitrarily, and without proper notice in restricting trustee's investments with employers. 7. The Commissioner seeks to apply new actuarial guidelines retrospectively to July 1982. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, take action to remedy these inadequacies and in particular we pray that action be taken: (i) To ensure that the Commissioner exercises his discretion only with proper regard to legal principles; (ii) To ensure that the Commissioner does not delegate to auditors part of his function of administering the Act; (iii) To enact legislation allowing proper levels of retirement benefits to be provided; (iv) To ensure that retirement benefits are regulated by a Department with a primarily social welfare function. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia: Request that the Minister of Communications make available a Public Broadcasting Category ''S'' licence for a Christian Radio Station for Perth. The present broadcasting media in Perth does not include a christian radio station, and your petitioners wish to acknowledge the need for one. During the period November 20, 1982 to November 26, 1982 Good News Broadcasters (operating under 6 GNB-FM, transmitting at a frequency of 106.5 MHz) have been broadcasting on a trial basis. The programme which was broadcast has had a favourable response among your petitioners. They now call upon the Senate to persuade the Minister of Communications in granting the Good News Broadcasters a broadcasting licence so they can continue their ministry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Uranium enrichment is a chemical process which involves no nuclear reactions , no increase in radioactivity and no radioactive elements are produced. 2. The average level of radiation received by workers in U.S. enrichment plants over a five year period has been less than 50 milli-rem per year which is four times less than the occupant of a brick home. 3. A centrifuge enrichment plant would be clean, essentially noiseless and have little impact on the surrounding environment in which it was located. 4. The establishment of such a plant would generate significant export earnings for Australia. 5. The establishment of a uranium enrichment plant in South Australia would provide some 1,800 jobs during the construction and production stages and this would provide a significant boost to the South Australian economy. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to press for the establishment of a uranium plant in South Australia. by Senator Jessop (from 120 citizens). To the President of the Senate and Senators of the Australian Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the recent reductions in Federal Government funding to the States for the provision of public health care have caused and will increasingly continue to cause, severe hardships to medical staff, nurses and other workers of the public health system of New South Wales. That the aforementioned reductions in funding are severely jeopardising the safety of patients through reductions in medical, nursing and general hospital staff. That the resulting staff reductions and increased workloads thereby imposed on remaining staff are producing severe stress and deteriorating morale among staff at all levels. That the concept of ''the user pays'' and the phasing out of the universal health scheme are a grave injustice to low and middle income earners. and respectfully call for: Abolition of the concept of ''the user pays'' for health care; Reintroduction of a universal health scheme; and urgent review and reassessment of funding to the states for health care with a view to relieving the deficiencies in the provision of health care services currently existing. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 315 citizens). To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia, respectfully showeth: The Aged who are in need of nursing care in Nursing Homes, have the right to receive that care from properly trained nursing staff. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will ensure that adequate funds are provided which will enable the aged population of this country to receive the quality of nursing care that they deserve. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 32 citizens). The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth the need for the immediate introduction of an Attendant Care Allowance for Disabled people who need assistance with aspects of daily living. This allowance will enable disabled people to live in the community. It should be in the form of a benefit paid directly to the disabled person enabling him/her to employ and train the attendant of his/her own choice. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp (from 191 citizens) and Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 219 citizens). To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizen of Australia respectfully showeth : That the members of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Federal Police Association seek a Senate inquiry into the Australian Federal Police concerning its functions and efficiency before assenting to any legislation concerning a new security force and the further wastage of public money. Your petitioner humbly prays that Government will take measures to ensure than an enquiry is conducted. And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from one citizen). To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we protest at the continual refusal of the Commonwealth Government to seek the opinion of the Australian people as to whether or not we should remain a homogenous European society, and that, against the advice of all public opinion polls it continues to dismantle the trouble free and cohesive structure of the Australian way of life; as it continues to promote and mislead the people on the alleged benefits of a multi-racial society. That the Government seeks immediately to increase the percentage of Australians of British, Irish and other Caucasian background so that the traditions, heritage and way of life of our people shall not be destroyed. That the position of Commissioner for Community Relations be phased out as the need diminishes with an increase in the content of British, Irish and Caucasian people in the Australian population. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the implementation of the recommendations of the Davidson Committee report into telecommunications services in Australia will have the effects of: Increasing telephone rentals and call charges, particularly for rural and domestic subscribers and therefore putting telephone services beyond the economic reach of the isolated, frail and disabled who depend on the telephone for social contact; Reducing service standards; Increasing taxation by using Telecom services as a taxing medium; Increasing unemployment in both Telecom and the Electronics Manufacturing Industry; Destroying the security and sovereignty of telecommunications services in Australia; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government rejects the recommendations of the Davidson Report and preserves and develops Telecom as the sole provider of an integrated national Telecommunications system. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 35 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Archbishop, clergy and laymen of the Seventh Congress of the Australian and New Zealand Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad) assembled in Sydney on 27-29th December 1982, respectfully showeth that the Government of the USSR continues its blatant persecution of the Faithful, thus violating all international conventions and agreements. Leaders of the Orthodox Faithful in the USSR (not the representatives of the officially sanctioned Patriarchate) and lay men and women who are active in organising religious discussion groups, or taking the Word of God to spiritually starved people, are being arrested, held without trial and/or sentenced to hard labour in concentration camps and subsequently exiled to remote areas of the country. Progressively perfecting their methods of persecution and harassment Soviet authorities resort to confiscation of Bibles, Prayer Books and religious literature from believers languishing in concentration camps, and deny them visits by relatives, friends and clergy, in keeping with the long existing prohibition of Christian Mission in the USSR. They resort also to discrimination against relatives of religious prisoners whose families are often left destitute and denied any assistance from friends abroad. Parcels and letters are often returned undelivered, with no satisfactory explanation given by the Postal Authorities. The most prominent of the imprisoned Orthodox believers are: VLADIMIR OSIPOV is still in a Mordovian camp (since 1974) and has been denied visits by relatives Fr. GLEB YAKUNIN ALEXANDER OGORODNIKOV VLADIMIR PORESH have undertaken extensive hunger strikes in protest against confiscation of their copies of the Bible and Prayer Books The latest victim of this inhuman persecution is the Editor/Compiler of the religious almanach 'Hope' ZOYA KRAKHMALNIKOVA (arrested August 4, 1982) whose only crime is her belief in Our Lord Jesus Christ and her apostolic venture to make His Word known to her people. We the undersigned, members of the Congress, humbly request that the Australian Government protest to the Government of the USSR in the strongest possible terms , against this senseless persecution of the Orthodox Faithful in the USSR, against harassment of their relatives. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from two citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. That the Queensland Government Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement rules the lives of Queensland's Aboriginal and Islander citizens in an authoritarian manner which resembles the agressive paternalism of the last century and, in fact, does little to nurture their advancement. 2. That Torres Strait Islanders are subjected to an official Government policy of 'integration' which has resulted in half the population drifting from their homelands to the mainland in search of employment. 3. That no serious attempt has ever been made by the Department to provide employment opportunities for the Islanders and establish industries in the Torres Strait and elsewhere. 4. That the Department has tolerated a 50-60 per cent level of venereal disease in the Torres Strait Islands for years. 5. That the cultural, social and economic position of black people in Queensland has actually been retarded under the command of the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will vote in approval of the establishment of a Senate Select Committee to inquire into the effects of the administration and other activities of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement on the lives and well-being of the Aboriginal and Islander people under its control. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 232 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the requirement that pensioners and health care cardholders fill in a complex declaration when presenting prescriptions is causing distress to beneficiaries and inefficiencies in the distribution of medicines by pharmacists . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will immediately abolish the requirement that a declaration be completed by the Pensioner and Health Care Cardholder. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McIntosh (from 8,827 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are gravely concerned at proposed hydro-electric developments in South West Tasmania. As this area is on the Register of the National Estate it is of national concern and your petitioners humbly call upon the Senate to support, or, if necessary, to initiate a Federal Inquiry into South West Tasmania. Your petitioners also call upon the Federal Parliament not to allocate or allow funds to be raised for construction of dams in the South West of Tasmania but to provide such funds as would enable the preservation of this area. This is a national asset and Tasmanians should not be made to bear any financial burden resulting from its preservation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 42 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That the continuing high level of tax avoidance and evasion is cause for grave concern for honest Australian taxpayers, and demands stringent and immediate action by the Commonwealth, noting in particular: 1. The latest estimate by the Australian Taxpayers' Association is that $7,000m a year is being lost in taxation revenue; 2. This figure can only continue to rise because of the timid approach by the Government in closing off tax loopholes; and 3. No effective inroads can be made until a comprehensive policy is adopted of levying tax from the date on which a scheme of tax avoidance is first used. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from 30 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give two contingent notices of motion as follows: (1) Contingent on any Bill being reported from a Committee of the Whole, I shall move- That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay. (2) Contingent on any Bill originating in the Senate having been read a first time, I shall move- That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay. Senator DURACK —I refer the Attorney-General to the minute from the Chief of Defence Force Staff, Sir Neville McNamara, to the Chief of the Air Staff, dated 12 April this year-one of the papers tabled by the Attorney-General yesterday-in which Sir Neville expressed his extreme concern that the decision to involve Royal Australian Air Force personnel in the Gordon below Franklin dispute was treated as a routine task. Sir Neville McNamara said that this demonstrated 'a lack of awareness of the political sensitivities and even deeper consequences of the use of defence assets in an issue such as the Franklin River Dam dispute'. I ask the Attorney: How is it that a non-political officer, albeit a very distinguished one, had such a clear perception of major constitutional issues, whereas the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth completely failed to understand them? Senator GARETH EVANS —All that the CDFS is doing in this memo is drawing attention to the obvious political sensitivity of the matter. I might add that he is doing so with the benefit of hindsight, given the way in which the operation was actually carried out. In drawing attention to the sensitivity of the matter, he is being critical in two directions: He is being critical downwards, of the operational officers under his command, for not alerting him of the nature of the proposed mission and seeking his formal approval for it, as indeed is required under the operative Defence Force guidelines, which I will again be happy to table should anyone ask me to do so at any later stage in this debate. Senator Durack —I ask you now. Senator GARETH EVANS —Very well. For the benefit of Senator Durack and anyone else who may be interested I table a document entitled 'Defence Force Aid to the Civil Power-Situations Other Than Counter Terrorist Operations-Policy and Procedures'. Senator Harradine —Where are the Prime Minister's letters on this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator can have whatever he likes. Senator Harradine —What about tabling the Prime Minister's letters? Senator GARETH EVANS —I did very nicely for you yesterday, Senator, by way of answering your interjection in respect of photographs. If we continue to answer your interjections in the course of Question Time you may end up with rather more questions during the year than you deserve. The PRESIDENT —Order! I remind the Attorney-General that he is answering a question asked by Senator Durack. Senator GARETH EVANS —Indeed. The other criticism that the CDFS is implicitly making in this particular memorandum is of the failure of his political head to consult him in relation to this matter. That is a matter that the Minister for Defence is quite conscious of, as I am, and we readily acknowledge that mistakes were made in the way in which this whole operation was in fact implemented. I cannot really say much more than that. We fully accept ministerial responsibility for the way in which the operation was conducted-a classic demonstration as it was of Murphy's law. Senator JONES —I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, by referring to the fact that yesterday the honourable senator, in answer to a question, described a meeting on Aboriginal health between the Minister and Mr Bird, the Queensland Minister responsible for Aboriginal and Island Affairs. I ask: In view of that discussion and the further evidence that is now available, will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs take immediate action to establish a royal commission to inquire into all aspects of the administration of Aboriginal affairs in Queensland by the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement in response to mounting evidence of the devastating effects of the genocidal policies of the present Queensland Government towards the Aboriginal and Islander population of that State? Senator RYAN —I share the concern expressed by Senator Jones in his question. As I indicated yesterday, the Government is acutely aware of the health problems of Aboriginal people in Queensland and the further evidence that has come to light in the past few days only increases our concern. The matter of establishing a royal commission is one for government decision. I will pass the honourable senator's suggestion on to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and obtain from him an early response as to his views on the feasibility and desirablility of establishing a royal commission into this very urgent matter. Senator MISSEN —I ask the Attorney- General: In view of the continued and possibly exaggerated interest being taken in the use of Royal Australian Air Force facilities to photograph works being undertaken by the Tasmanian Government in the Franklin River area, does he agree that it would be wise now to employ private facilities to ensure that all necessary evidence is available to the court to establish continuing breaches of the laws of this country now in operation pursuant to the World Heritage (Western Tasmania Wilderness) Regulations, and that other red herrings should not be allowed to obscure the major issue-the full protection of the World Heritage area? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to Senator Missen for his clear-sighted and clear-headed appreciation of what the real issues are in this particular case. The real issues in this case have manifestly to do with the protection of this crucially significant part of the Australian and world environment. The Commonwealth Government is going about the business of protecting that crucial part of the national and international heritage in the best way that it possibly can. Senator Missen is right in saying that it is necessary that evidence continue to be accumulated as to what is happening in Tasmania. We are doing our best to do just that, in co-operation now with the Tasmanian Government following a communication offering such co-operation from Mr Gray during the week of the Summit. I can assure Senator Missen and the Senate that all necessary steps to accumulate evidence in support of the Commonwealth's position in this court case are being taken. Senator MISSEN —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. My question of course refers specifically to the obtaining of evidence by commercial sources, not the RAAF. Has that method been considered? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is one of the options that have been considered and are continuing to be considered. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I ask: When will the Government be in a position to finalise the details of introducing computers into all schools? Will the Government give consideration to adopting a common system for all schools? Finally, can the Minister indicate whether a preference will be given to Australian manufactured computers? Senator RYAN —I have placed the highest priority on advancing our program for introducing computer education into all schools. Our commitment takes this form: All government secondary schools and all needy non-government schools which have not yet been able to provide computer education for their students will be assisted over a three-year period to have programs operating, but we hope to have a result before the end of three years. In initiating this proposal I have already established within the Schools Commission a national committee which is investigating the kinds of matters which Senator Ray's question raises. I regard it of great importance that the systems that are introduced throughout Australian schools be compatible with each other. Apparently in the past there has been some ad hockery in the development of the curriculum associated with these courses. One of the terms of reference of the national committee is that a common compatible system of computers be established throughout Australian schools, that there be national curriculum materials for software of the highest standard and that all schools have these curriculum materials available to them. To that end we have invited a number of computer curriculum experts on to the committee. We are also very aware of the need to promote Australian manufacturing wherever possible, and as my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology has pointed out many times, there is a potential within Australian manufacturing for the manufacture of computer hardware of this kind. One of the terms of reference of the committee is to look at the possibility of having the computer systems and the associated hardware as well as the software manufactured in Australia. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. In the light of the atomic test by the French Government on Mururoa Atoll, will the Minister advise whether it is true that the uranium mine at Ben Lomond in Queensland is 100 per cent owned by Minatome Australia Pty Ltd, a totally French company? Is the environmental impact statement on Ben Lomond presently being processed by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment on guidelines set up by the previous Liberal Government? Is this being done without taking into account public statements by the Government in recent days that it is reviewing its uranium mining policies? Finally, given the Government's public statements on atomic tests on Mururoa Atoll, will it take direct action against French uranium mining interests in Queensland so that we cease any possibility of Australian uranium being used in nuclear testing? Senator WALSH —Regarding the French atomic test, I understand that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has already issued a formal protest to the French Government . I believe that Senator Macklin is correct in that Minatome, if not the sole owner, is certainly the dominant partner in the proposed Ben Lomond project and that an environmental impact statement either has gone or shortly will go to the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. As for the central theme of Senator Macklin's question as distinct from the subsidiary detail, I draw his attention to an item in the Australian Labor Party platform-I do not have it with me-which states quite explicitly that as long as France continues to test atomic weapons, Australian uranium, regardless of all other constraints which may be in that platform, will not be supplied to France. If I may add a personal view, I fully endorse that sentiment and regard the French action in the South Pacific as being quite unacceptable at this time, particularly in view of the fact that it would be equally technically feasible to conduct such tests in the Mediterranean or the Bay of Biscay, and they are not conducted in those areas. Senator BOLKUS —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, is probably of more interest to more Australians than the self-indulgent nit- picking from the Opposition over the last couple of days. I refer the Attorney- General to the recent decision in the Victorian Supreme Court in which Mr Justice Crockett, in the case of Silvio Foschini, found that the Victorian Football League rules covering zoning, clearances and transfers were a restraint of trade. Has the Attorney been alerted to requests by people in the football fraternity for government involvement to sort out the situation caused by the Court's decision as well as the continuing problems with respect to interstate clearances? Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the decision, those clubs with the greatest financial resources will be able to plunder the financially weaker clubs of their talent? Can the Minister examine the situation to see what legislative or administrative action the Government can take? Will he, in so doing, raise the matter with the Trade Practices Commission to see whether the Commission is in a position to formulate a set of guidelines to regulate this important industry? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Victorian Supreme Court decision, to which Senator Bolkus refers, is indeed a matter of very great interest to a very large number of people throughout this country who support Australian rules football, particularly in the honourable senator's own State, in my State and indeed I understand even in the State of Tasmania. Senator Jack Evans —And in Western Australia. Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not neglect Western Australia, in case there are any sensitivities there. Unfortunately, while I would be happy to help find some resolution to this problem, I regret that there does not really appear to be any way in which the Commonwealth can be of assistance, certainly not under the existing legislation. In 1979 the Federal Court of Australia held, in the case of Adamson v. the West Perth Football Club Incorporated, that the refusal of an Australian rules football club to grant a clearance to a professional footballer does not amount to a contravention of the Trade Practices Act because the relevant provision of that Act, section 45 (3), does not apply to contracts between football clubs and their players. The argument-if anyone is interested in the legal exotica surrounding this-is that what is involved here are contracts of service rather than contracts for services. The Trade Practices Act is concerned only with markets for goods or services. It is for this reason that the proceedings which gave rise to the present problems for the Victorian Football League were proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court rather than the Federal Court for restraint of trade under the common law. That, of course, is a State matter, not a Commonwealth one. Since refusal to grant clearances to football players does not contravene the Trade Practices Act I am afraid there would not be any point in my referring, at the moment anyway, the matter to the Trade Practices Commission. However, some interesting questions were raised as to whether or not the Trade Practices Act might not be able to be amended in some respects to cover the situation subject to the constraints of constitutional power to which this Government is always alert. Under those circumstances I will ask my Department to give the policy aspects of this matter some further consideration. Senator Peter Baume —Mr President, could the honourable senator table the document from which he was quoting? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I would be delighted to do so. The PRESIDENT —The document is tabled. Senator MacGIBBON —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, relates to the documents tabled by him yesterday which show that the Acting Deputy Secretary to his Department, a Mr Glare, a very senior officer, knew at about 11.15 a.m. on the morning of Friday, 8 April, that there had been two Royal Australian Air Force photographic flights over the Gordon below Franklin site. Given the fact that the Attorney-General was one of the originators of this exercise and presumably had a very acute interest in what was going on, is the Attorney-General seriously asking this Senate to believe his statement of 14 April, which was repeated here yesterday, that it was not until the afternoon of Tuesday, 12 April-four days later-that he finally learnt of the second sortie? Furthermore, in the light of the documents tabled yesterday has there been a revolution in the command and control of the armed forces in Australia in relation to this Parliament? Do parliamentarians or Ministers now have the ability directly to task Service aircraft, ships or personnel to perform specific duties rather than follow the traditional legal path of making a request? Senator GARETH EVANS —The minute in the papers to which the honourable senator referred says only that Mr Glare was aware on the Friday morning that a Royal Australian Air Force F111 was airborne. It does not say that he was aware at that time-although no doubt that was an assumption he was then making-that the mission was completed and that photographs were taken. If one reads his minute carefully one sees that that is all he said. I saw that minute for the first time on the Monday morning when I arrived in Canberra wondering what on earth had gone on over the weekend and the preceding days. I was very anxious to find out in detail. When I was briefed by the Department on what had gone on I was shown that minute and so was alerted then to the possibility that there had been two flights-not only the Mirage flight about which all the fuss was raging but also the F111 flight. I acknowledged in my joint Press statement with the Minister for Defence that I had been alerted to that possibility but I was certainly not in a position of knowing that that flight had occurred, in the sense of having confirmed knowledge of it, until the following day, the Tuesday afternoon, when a minute that had been presented to the Minister for Defence by the Secretary to the Defence Department was in turn communicated to me. A state of general confusion surrounded the course of events as they were in people's knowledge on the Monday. I readily acknowledge that that was the state of affairs. I certainly was not in a position of having any confirmed knowledge that a second flight had taken place. I am not in the business of misleading Parliament on this or any other issue. As to the second matter raised by the honourable senator, relating to command and control procedures, if he perused with his usual dedication the minute that I tabled relating to procedures governing Defence Force aid to the civil power in situations other than counter-terrorist operations-a document which, incidentally, is marked 'Restricted' but which I hasten to add is being tabled by me today with the express clearance of the Defence Department-he would see that there are innumerable situations in which Defence Force activity takes place in aid of the civil power, particularly in law enforcement situations falling short of a likely or actual use of force, and in which command and control procedures are operative at a department to department level without involving ministerial intervention or authorisation. If the honourable senator delayed his enthusiasm until he had had the opportunity to peruse that document and brief himself a little more carefully on just how the world works within the military, he might not be quite so quick to jump to the conclusions to which he has jumped and which underlie his question. Senator RICHARDSON —I refer the Minister for Social Security to the establishment of an Office of Aged Care, foreshadowed in the Governor-General's Speech. What arrangements are to be made in the immediate future to co-ordinate the functions of his Department and the Department of Health, and will there be opportunity for community consultation? Senator GRIMES —Honourable senators will know that the Australian Labor Party has , as part of its policy, the establishment of an Office of Aged Care because of the present unsatisfactory situation in which Federal funding and programs for the frail aged are divided between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health. Honourable senators may also know that the Government is now considering the arrangements within the Department of Social Security, which has become a very large department, and it is considering whether it would be better to divide that Department into separate departments such as Income Security and Services, as is done in so many other countries. It may be-I am not saying it will-that in the long run we will end up with this division of responsibilities. Under those circumstances we will have to consider the arrangement within the departments and whether we do what is done in so many countries and have a Department of Health and Welfare Services and a Department of Income Security, et cetera. The Governor-General announced in his Speech the Government's intention of establishing an Office of Aged Care. At this stage we have not decided whether the Office of Aged Care should be anywhere other than where responsibility for aged care predominantly is now, that is, in the Department of Social Security. That point will be taken into account in consideration of the future of the Department of Social Security. I suspect that that is a long way down the track. It is not an easy thing to rearrange departments of its size. It is not an easy thing, as Senator Chaney will know, to rearrange legislation of the complexity which exists now. We certainly are going to co-ordinate the activities of care for the frail aged. We certainly are going to establish an Office of Aged Care. We hope in the next year or so to finalise the arrangements as to just where that Office shall be. Senator JACK EVANS —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation to a sentence in the Governor-General's Speech which reads : My Government recognises the importance of the aviation industry to the Australian economy and the Australian quality of life. How does the Government intend to put recognition of the quality of life factor into practice? Is the Government aware that limited competition in the provision of air travel particularly disadvantages, both financially and physically, most people travelling to and from Western Australia? What incentives does the Government propose to give the airlines to improve their service, reduce the parallelism of their schedules and increase the competitiveness of the airlines industry? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Evans asks a question about the very vexing problem of parallel air services and their effects-a problem that has plagued governments for many years. A few days ago I had an opportunity to raise the matter directly with the Minister for Aviation, Mr Beazley. I asked him what proposals he had in mind. Whilst he was not in a position to give me a definitive answer, I can assure the honourable senator that the issue is very high on the Minister's list of priorities within his responsibility. We are concerned about it as a government. The honourable senator will appreciate that at this stage there are some major problems about airports with which we must concern ourselves. I refer particularly to the problems in my State of New South Wales which are occupying the attention of the Minister. It is the intention of the Government that it should have some negotiations with the two airlines about the way in which they function, the problem of air fares and the schedules the two airlines operate. I can assure the honourable senator from Western Australia that the Government will be in a position very shortly to give him a progress report on the way in which it will tackle the matter. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Over the years there has been much confusion for people on social security payments when calculating income. Will the Minister consider changing the present pensioner year to a financial year so that incomes can be calculated as from 1 July each year? Senator GRIMES —The matter that Senator Elstob raised has been the subject of appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and, I believe, to one of the higher courts. It is certainly something that the Department of Social Security is looking at and that the Government will be looking at. When I have further information available as a result of the investigations we are having done I will let the honourable senator know. Senator JESSOP —I ask a question of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer to the proposed establishment of a royal commission to inquire into the effects of herbicides and pesticides on veterans of the Vietnam war. Has the Government decided on the commissioner to carry out this inquiry? What are the terms of reference? What staff will be provided to assist the royal commission? When does the Government expect the inquiry to be completed? Finally, in view of the Senate's interest in this important subject, when does the Minister expect to be in a position to respond to the first interim report of the previous Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment on the possible effects of herbicides and pesticides on the health of Vietnam veterans? The Minister will be aware that the Committee requested a response from the previous Government by 31 March, which was much earlier than the usual period of six months. I recognise the Minister's difficulty, but I would like to know when he will be in a position to report on it. Senator GIETZELT —Senator Jessop asked a relevant question about the Government's response to the Senate Committee's interim report. I will deal first with the second part of the question. It has always been my view that any Senate committee report should receive a response from the Government as early as practicable. We have had common views in the Senate about this over recent years . It is my intention, therefore, during the May sitting weeks of the Senate, to make a statement responding to the various recommendations made by that Committee. I am sure that the Senate will be happy with the Government's response to the majority of the recommendations. Negotiations have been entered into with my colleague the Attorney-General about the appointment of a suitable person to conduct the royal commission. The terms of reference have also been discussed with him and with other Ministers who have a common interest in this matter. It is the Government's intention, as indicated in the Governor-General's Speech yesterday, to proceed with the royal commission into the effects of herbicides and all of the associated problems experienced by those who served in Vietnam. I believe, depending upon the ability of the Cabinet to deal with the matter, that it will be one of the early announcements made during the first sitting week in May. The appointment of the commissioner, the legal counsel to assist him and the consultants who need to be appointed are the subject of negotiations which are reasonably well advanced. We will be in a position on either the first or second day of the first sitting week in May to make an announcement in the Parliament about it. Senator ROBERTSON —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Transport give an assurance to the people of the Northern Territory that, despite the massive deficit which the Government has inherited, work will proceed as promised on the Alice Springs-Darwin rail link? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Robertson asked me a question in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I am advised that it is the Government's intention to construct the Alice Springs to Darwin railway as part of its long-standing commitment to the completion of an all-weather standard gauge connection between Adelaide and Darwin. I appreciate the interest that that has for residents of the Northern Territory and, indeed, South Australia. I remind the Senate that it was the Whitlam Government which in 1975 commenced construction of the section from Tarcoola to Alice Springs as part of that overall project. I recall that the then shadow Minister for Transport, Mr Morris , who is now the Minister, made a commitment during the election campaign in February that a Labor government would continue construction of the line between Alice Springs and Darwin, with a suggested target date of 1988, and that he would energetically seek to prepare the necessary financial and construction details of the project. I remind the Senate that, having regard to the ailing nature of the private sector resulting largely from the mismanagement of this country over the past seven years, the Commonwealth Government will look to assisting the development of a whole number of Commonwealth projects in the ensuing period, but that will depend upon the availability of funds. Nevertheless, no steps will be taken that will curtail that election commitment. Senator WATSON —I ask the Attorney-General whether he misled the Senate yesterday on the question of when the Prime Minister became aware of the second spy flight over the Gordon below Franklin Dam site. Does he deny that his joint statement with Mr Scholes on 14 April states that he first spoke to Mr Hawke about the Royal Australian Air Force involvement on the morning of Monday, 11 April, and that 'he told the Prime Minister that he had just received information from the Attorney-General's Department from which it appeared that there may in fact have been two flights the previous week and that he was seeking verification of this'? How does this tip-off to his leader square with yesterday's answer from him that: 'There is no question of the Prime Minister knowing about the two flights on Monday. He did not know about them, as I have indicated in subsequent public statements, until later in the week'? If Mr Hawke did not know about the flights on Monday, why did he issue orders on Monday morning putting an end to the whole business? Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand that these distinctions are a little subtle for some honourable senators but there is a striking distinction that I seek to draw, and always have drawn, between a state of knowledge on the one hand and a state of belief as to the possibility on the other. The situation is that on the Monday morning, as I explained in answer to someone else earlier, I was in a state of belief as to the possibility of there having been an F111 flight, as a result of Mr Glare's memorandum to which I referred. Mr Glare knew that an F111 had been airborne; he had been told as much on Friday. But that aircraft was airborne in the first instance as part of a mission that took it over oil rigs in Bass Strait and over the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra and which also involved some photographic training runs in the Sydney-Gosford area. It was only in the last ten minutes of the flight that it diverted down, we now know, and took a picture of the Gordon below Franklin Dam. On Monday morning Mr Glare was not in a state of knowledge as to whether the F111 had in fact gone on to fly over Tasmania. He had not been told in any detail about that. I said: 'For God's sake, will you verify that so that we know what is going on and what did go on?' He then went about the task of verification but that verification did not come to me in a form which amounted to knowledge on my part until, as I have continually said, Tuesday afternoon. As I said in the joint Press statement with the Minister for Defence, what happened on the Monday morning so far as the Prime Minister is concerned is that when I spoke to him on the Monday morning during the tea break in the National Economic Summit Conference I said, in the course of a conversation which concentrated more on questions of basic principle than on matters of precise detail: 'It seems that there may in fact have been two flights but I do not have verification of that. I am seeking it'. That really puts the situation in a nutshell. I did not have any further conversation with the Prime Minister about this matter, since quite properly he was preoccupied with other matters in the other chamber, until later in the week when the news emerged publicly of the existence of the F111 flight. There is no inconsistency in any of the positions I have taken, either publicly or privately , in explaining the course of events at any stage and certainly there has been no question of misleading the Parliament. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to recent Press items concerning private employment agencies which charge fees to job applicants. I refer particularly to two such employment agencies operating in South Australia, namely, Jobfinders and JAL. Can the Minister tell the Senate how many such private employment agencies are operating in Australia? Is the Minister aware that the two agencies I have just named are engaged in a massive rip-off of unemployed people and do not attempt actively to seek work for their clients? Is the Minister aware of any possible breaches of the Trade Practices Act concerning the operation of these agencies? What action can the Government take to stop these rather unscrupulous activities ? Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator's question referred to an article which I am afraid I have not seen; nor has it been referred to me. I would certainly be concerned and the Government would be concerned about allegations of that type about such job agencies. The question also sought considerable detail, which I will seek from the relevant Minister and get to the honourable senator as soon as possible. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I believe he said on AM on 11 April: I wrote last week to the Minister for Defence asking him did he mind if we set in train that kind of activity if it was consistent with normal defence operational activity. Yesterday some letters were tabled, and the letter from Senator Gareth Evans to the Minister for Defence dated 6 April made no reference to a requirement that flights be undertaken if they were consistent with normal defence operational activity. Is there another letter which has not been disclosed from the Attorney -General to the Minister for Defence, or did he mislead the public of Australia on AM? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator is plunging to new depths of tiresomeness with that question. I had two communications with the Minister for Defence. One was an oral conversation. I do not think there is any other way of having a conversation. Actually there is an offence known to the law as criminal conversation, but I was not embarked upon that relationship with the Minister for Defence at that time. In the course of the oral exchange with the Minister for Defence I specifically raised with him the question of whether such a flight would be consistent with the ordinary training and operational activity of the RAAF. That particular matter was not specifically adverted to in the follow-up formal confirming letter, which was in fact prepared later that day and signed and sent early the following morning. But that was simply a matter of not in the letter retailing everything that was the subject matter of the conversation. If in my AM reference I did not precisely distinguish, for the benefit of an audience no doubt agog with indifference to these distinctions, the difference between the oral conversation and the letter, so be it; that was an error on my part. But there is no second letter. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. In view of a biased and ill-informed campaign by the League of Rights and the organisation known as Women Who Want to be Women against the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, can the Attorney- General please explain the reasons for and the implications of ratification of this important Convention, action which, I might say, is supported by all reputable established Australian women's organisations? Is there any truth at all in the assertions of drastic impositions upon Australian society such as the elimination of gender by law or at least the conscription of all 18-year-old girls into the defence forces? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no foundation for any of the wilder assertions that have been made and continue to be made about the effect of sex discrimination conventions, treaties and domestic legislation of this kind. Nor is it even proposed that there be obligatory unisex toilets in the future as the result of any such changes to the law. The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women was signed by Australia on 17 July 1980. Its ratification has been the subject of a fairly endless round of consultations and meetings between the Commonwealth and State Ministers over the last three years, a process which is now likely to be rather dramatically cut short following the change of government at Commonwealth level because the Commonwealth indicated clearly through me at a recent meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that it proposes to move ahead very quickly to the ratification of that Convention and to accompany that ratification with the absolute minimum of reservations and declarations. There may need to be one or two such reservations or declarations, including one in relation to combat duty in the armed forces, which has been the subject of concern not only from the groups to whom the honourable senator referred but also from others in the community. But the treaty, when ratified, will lay a firm foundation for two things: Firstly, Australia's stance and the credibility of Australia's stance in the international community as a country committed fully to the removal of all forms of discrimination against women; and, secondly, of course, effective national legislation within Australia which will enable a concerted and vigorous attack to be made on sex discrimination, including in those jurisdictions where no willingness hitherto has been demonstrated to mount such an attack. Senator CHANEY —I direct my question to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate who, like all other honourable senators, sat here yesterday and listened while the Attorney-General admitted his error and then mounted a most vigorous non-defence of his actions in ordering Royal Australian Air Force photographic missions over the site of the Gordon below Franklin Dam. So that the Senate can have a fair and balanced view of these extraordinary events, and as we have heard Senator Gareth Evans's reasons for ordering the flights, will the Prime Minister's representative outline the reasons why Mr Hawke felt so strongly opposed to Senator Gareth Evans's actions that he ordered an immediate end to Defence Force involvement? Senator GRIMES —Mr Hawke made a judgment as Prime Minister, after consulting with Senator Gareth Evans, Mr Scholes and other Ministers, that the decision to use the RAAF flights at this time was an unwise one and therefore no further flights were to be undertaken. Senator Gareth Evans accepted that situation. I just draw to the attention of the Senate a comparison between what has happened here in the last couple of days and weeks and what happened under the previous Government. Senator Gareth Evans had no problem at all coming into the Senate and tabling every bit of information available on this flight; he tabled it on the first opportunity in this Parliament. Compare that action-- Senator Walters —You have not answered the question. Senator GRIMES —I am answering the question. I am asking honourable senators to compare that action with the behaviour, for instance, of the two Ministers in the previous Government who were involved in the farcical episode with the colour television set when we had to drag information out day by day and week by week. I ask honourable senators to compare that action with the activities of the former Treasurer, who withheld from this whole community the size of the deficit in this country. I am suggesting to honourable senators that Senator Gareth Evans has acted in a responsible and sensible way in divulging to this Parliament every document that he has been able to lay hands on about this issue . We can all look at them. I think it is a very good example of the ineffectual behaviour of the Opposition that, having got all those documents, some 57 of them, it can only come up with the nitpicking sort of questions that it has come up with today. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question arising from that answer. Bearing in mind that the documents with respect to the colour television set were tabled and the Ministers concerned resigned, will the same course be followed in this case? Senator GRIMES —The documents on the colour television set issue were tabled very reluctantly, bit by bit, and in fact some of them were leaked. The Ministers concerned had to resign because, amongst other things, they attempted to mislead this Parliament. That is not something that Senator Evans has done. Senator HEARN —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. It is recognised that the availability of statistical information is essential to government and the community as a means of monitoring social need. It appears that at present the only breakdown of statistical information on the number of people receiving an invalid pension is in postcode areas. Is it possible for the Department of Social Security to collect statistical information so that the different categories of handicapped people and their age groups will be available? Senator GRIMES —Senator Hearn raises an important point. The planning of welfare in this community is bedevilled by the fact that we do not have adequate statistics. In fact, every report from the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, for instance, and from all sorts of people in the community usually starts off by saying: 'Look, we cannot investigate this properly because we have not got adequate statistics and we have not got an adequate breakdown of statistics'. I certainly intend to ensure in the future that statistical collection in this area is improved. I wish, and indeed everyone wishes, that we had a much clearer picture of just what happens in the community, particularly in the area of invalid pensions and disability which was referred to by Senator Hearn. However, we do not have this, partly because of the problems of getting an adequate collection, although the Australian Bureau of Statistics has tried to improve this in recent years, partly because of the difficulty and fuss which arises every time one tries to put this sort of question in the census and partly because census statistics, as honourable senators will know, are sometimes not processed. I would hope that in the future we have a proper breakdown of the nature of disability and the reasons why people are in receipt of invalid pensions. I will certainly seek to hurry up the improvement in this area so that not only Senator Hearn but also other honourable senators and the whole community can benefit from such information. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer the Minister to the letter of 20 April from Senator Gareth Evans to Mr Scholes indicating that use would not be made of the photographs for legal proceedings without prior clearance by the Prime Minister. I refer also to Mr Scholes's letter to the Prime Minister of 13 April suggesting that the photographs should not be used in any court proceedings. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Prime Minister proposes to allow the photographic evidence to be used for court proceedings? Senator GRIMES —It is my understanding that that matter is under consideration but as yet no decision has been made. Senator MAGUIRE —I direct my question to the Attorney-General, who represents the Special Minister of State. Will the Government examine the review or reviews of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the 1978 or 1979 study of Senate informal votes carried out by the former Government with a view to making those reports public? Senator GARETH EVANS —I take it that the honourable senator is referring to what is known as the Harders report on these matters. There is some difficulty, I am advised, as to getting access automatically to that material since it was commissioned by the preceding Government. But equally, I understand that measures are likely to be taken to seek the consent of the previous Government to gaining access to it and building that into the general review of the electoral laws of this country which is proceeding apace and which will no doubt result in proposals for legislation in the Budget session. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Could the Attorney-General clear up the confusion now evident in his public statements when compared with detail contained in the material tabled by him yesterday? In his statement on 14 April, Senator Evans said that a Mirage flight took place on Thursday, 8 April and an F111 flight on Friday, 9 April. As Thursday was 7 April and Friday was 8 April, can the Attorney-General confirm whether the Mirage flight took place on Thursday, 7 April or Friday, 8 April and whether the F111 flight took place on Friday, 8 April or Saturday, 9 April? Did he prepare that statement and/or did he check it before it was issued? Senator GARETH EVANS —Can I ask the honourable senator first would he mind informing me whether he regards that as a resigning matter before I answer? My understanding is that the Mirage flight took place on the Thursday and the F111 flight took place on the Friday. An error was made in the numbering of the days in that joint statement which was just a product of the speed with which it was prepared. Senator SIBRAA —My question also is directed to the Attorney-General but in his role as Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Is the Minister aware that tens of thousands of young Australians were unable to enrol for the last election due to the premature closing of the rolls by the previous Government? Will the Minister ensure that this does not occur in future? Further , will he ensure that all eligible electors of the Bruce electorate have the opportunity to enrol prior to the by-election that will be won by the Australian Labor Party? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, the Government is aware of the circumstances which existed prior to the election and the outrageous disenfranchisement that resulted for many thousands-our estimate is over 400,000-of Australians, most of them young Australians, as a result of the Government closing the rolls as quickly as it did. In the particular context of the Bruce electorate, I think it is fair to say that, had the rolls not been closed in the way they were and had those students who are resident in the various halls of residence at Monash University been able to get on the rolls, the result of that election would have been as it is now likely to be in the forthcoming by-election-and that is a result in favour of the Australian Labor Party. The cynicism of the previous Government in the way in which it closed the rolls unnecessarily briskly on that occasion is really quite unrivalled in electoral practice in this country. Senator Chipp —Are you saying the Government did it or the Chief Electoral Officer? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Chief Electoral Officer can act on these matters only on the advice of the Government. Parameters are laid down in the electoral law and the Constitution within which certain things have to occur. But the actual precise timing within those parameters is a matter for the Government to determine. There is no question but that the responsibility lies squarely in the lap of the former Prime Minister for that particular cynical exploitation of the opportunities available to him under the electoral law to disenfranchise those Australians. That is a situation that will not be allowed to continue under any circumstances in the future. There are two ways in which we will be ensuring that that is so. One is by appropriate amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, I understand, although that is still the subject of further obvious consideration by the Ministers in the Cabinet, but more particularly by the concept of a fixed term parliament. If we can succeed in having that concept endorsed by the Australian people as now seems likely, there will, of course, be a situation prevailing in the future where, except for the most exceptional circumstances, everybody will know well and truly in advance when elections are scheduled and be able to enrol accordingly. That will, of course, still solve the problems only so far as general elections are concerned; there will be problems so far as by-elections are concerned unless the electoral law is changed. But that is certainly the intention of the present Government to deal with the law in that way. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will he tell us when the Prime Minister intends to reply to the letter from the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray, which was handed to him 11 days ago and which protested about the use of Royal Australian Air Force aircraft to photograph progress on the Gordon below Franklin Dam site? Despite all that has been said and written since then, why has the Prime Minister not had the courtesy to acknowledge Mr Gray's concern in any way or does the Prime Minister perhaps share the view expressed by the Attorney-General yesterday that Tasmanian political representatives appear as though they come from another planet? Is not the Deputy Leader himself a Tasmanian political representative? Senator GRIMES —I will ignore the feeble attempts at political rhetoric in that question and will seek from the Prime Minister as soon as possible the information that the honourable senator requires. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Attorney-General. I refer to the report by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the constitutional qualifications of members of parliament. Has the Government yet had the opportunity to decide whether it will facilitate the implementation of some of the recommendations in this report? In particular, can the Attorney- General see any changes being made in the near future which will remove the necessity for a Commonwealth or State public servant to resign in order to contest a Senate or House of Representatives election? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has not yet given consideration to that report of the Senate committee, although it appreciates the unfairness that the present state of the law, both under the Constitution and under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, is in fact working. The matter of this report and the constitutional changes that may be necessary if the situation is to be fully corrected will be dealt with by the Constitutional Convention in Adelaide next week, although the likely outcome of that debate will simply be a reference of the matter to a committee. As a result it cannot be expected that there will be any immediate move towards constitutional amendment on that front. Nonetheless a number of matters are capable of being remedied by legislation, primarily Commonwealth legislation. That is something to which I hope the Government will give very urgent attention because of the injustices that are capable of being worked in this respect. Senator KILGARIFF —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs inform the Senate of details of the proposed inquiry into Aboriginal land rights announced recently by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs? In particular, can the Minister outline the objectives of the inquiry and the groups and persons which it is intended to involve? Further, will the Minister inform the House what proposals, if any, there are to introduce uniform legislation early next year and whether that legislation will be introduced despite opposition from any State or territorial government? Finally, will the Government table the report upon its completion? Senator RYAN —I will give Senator Kilgariff the information I have but I think what he is seeking is fairly detailed and that most of his question will have to be referred to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs announced on 18 April an inquiry into the provisions and operations of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Such an inquiry is contemplated in terms of section 61 (2) of the Act and is confined to the provision of a report in respect of the operations of the Act. The Minister is consulting with my colleague the Attorney-General about the possibility of the former Aboriginal Land Commissioner, Mr Justice Toohey, being available to prepare such a report. I will refer the other matters that Senator Kilgariff raised to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding. When we have fuller information as to the Minister's intentions in this matter I will inform Senator Kilgariff and the Senate. I should point out that the necessity for such an inquiry has come about because of the negligence and ineptitude of the previous Government in its handling of this matter. For some time there have been some problems associated with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, particularly the failure of the Act to cover the circumstances of Aboriginal people living on excisions; that is, small packets of land on pastoral properties in the Northern Territory. Their needs are not being met. That is one aspect of the Act which in my view and, I believe, in the view of the Government, needs amendment. There are other problems relating to the conduct of pastoral properties which become Aboriginal land and those matters need to be dealt with too. Undoubtedly, the behaviour of the previous Federal Government in this matter, where it continued to put off attending to the serious anomalies in the Act and continued to allow itself to be persuaded by the Northern Territory Government that the Act really ought not to be proceeded with, and that its positive features ought to be reduced, has led to a situation where an inquiry is necessary. When I am able to get the kind of detailed information that Senator Kilgariff sought I will let him and the Senate have it. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Durack proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The total ineptitude of the Attorney-General in the Tasmanian spy planes fiasco, his failure to explain his actions in any credible sense and his utmost reluctance to admit the error of his ways. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.10) —In view of the incredible events which were slowly unfolded last week, having had to be dragged out of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) over several days, in the light of the further revelations that emerged in the Senate yesterday and today and particularly because of information contained in documents which have been tabled, it seemed to me that it was a matter of the utmost public importance and , indeed, of urgency that the Senate should discuss the total ineptitude of this Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, in the Tasmanian spy planes fiasco, his failure to explain his actions in any believable way and his utmost reluctance to admit the errors of his ways, although his defence has been extraordinary. He now seems to be pleading guilty in some qualified way, in some new form of criminal defence which Senator Evans perhaps has dreamt up or which he may wish to pursue in other matters. Of course, Senator Evans has never enjoyed the same reputation in this chamber as he seems to enjoy in the Press Gallery, in the Law Reform Commission and among some circles of undergraduates. But I think even honourable senators will have been staggered by the series of political stupidities and schoolboy evasions in which he has recently indulged. It would really be a temptation just to laugh off the matter as Senator Evans tried to laugh it off with his famous streaker's defence-the throw away line he used the other day. It is a great temptation to laugh it all off. It is a great temptation simply to put it down to the zeal of the first few weeks of office and to say that the zeal and power have gone to his head. In fact, the matter is of the utmost importance because it reaches absolutely the depths of our Constitution. It simply is not good enough for an Attorney- General to behave in this way, to defend himself in this way and to be so reluctant to give the nation the full truth about his actions and those of the people who were associated with him in this exercise. This man is the chief legal adviser of the Government, a man who has the ministerial responsibility for the maintenance of law and justice on behalf of the Commonwealth and a man whose obligation it is to uphold the Constitution. Although Senator Evans may be upset about this and would prefer the situation to be otherwise, that Constitution happens to be a federal Constitution. It happens to embrace six States which have very clear rights. An even more fundamental constitutional issue is here at stake. That is the issue which, indeed, was perceived immediately by the Chief of Defence Force Staff, Sir Neville McNamara, in the minute to which I referred in Question Time and which Senator Evans tried to divert into another aspect. I suggest that all honourable senators study what Sir Neville said. It does clearly show the situation. We should be thankful that we have a Chief of Defence Force Staff who does understand these fundamental questions about the role of the military power in a democracy, a role about which, as I have said, Senator Evans seems to be confused. I think that is the fundamental problem with which we are faced by Senator Evans's actions- he just does not seem to understand this fundamental role of the military power and its relationship to the civil power, the Parliament and the people. That goes to the very heart of our democratic principles. It has been very slowly developed through our Westminster system of government. I know that Senator Evans is not so impressed with that Westminster system but I think that even on this subject-if he really understood it-he would acknowledge its importance. Here is a man who is very keen on law reform. He tells the world that he is going to be a great law reformer, but before he starts reforming it I think he should take a crash course in what the law is. He is supposed to be a great constitutional lawyer, in his own estimate and perhaps in the estimate of a few of his undergraduate students, but I think he needs to do a fundamental study of constitutional priniciples, not just of this particular constitution but of the constitutional principles of our democratic system. As I have said, the subordinate role of military power is absolutely fundamental to our democracy. Senator Evans is also going to introduce a Bill of Rights. We have heard a lot from him about rights, Bills of rights and everything he is going to do about them. I refer Senator Evans and the Senate to the Bill of Rights of 1688-I am sure he must have read it and he must remember it-which contains these words: The raising or keeping of a standing army within the Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law. That is a statement of that fundamental principle. From 1713 until 1955-in 1879 there was a small change-the House of Commons annually passed an Army Act to approve a standing army for one year only. It had to be passed every year. That puts the whole subject in a nutshell. Since 1955 the House of Commons has not reneged on that principle but it now provides the funds by annual appropriations , the same as we do. The long tradition of passing that annual Army Act was of vital importance in highlighting that subordinate role of military power to the civil power. Senator Evans was wrong in his actions in the week after Easter in requesting these matters in the way in which he did. No formal approval was obtained by the Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, nor was there ever any formal direction from the Chief of Defence Force Staff or the Chief of the Air Staff authorising the use of this aircraft. No formal approval was given-not for some re-routing of an ordinary operational activity, as Senator Evans tried to suggest on AM-for a special flight by an F111 in secret. Senator Evans objected yesterday to the reference to spy flights. According to the documents one of the first directions to the Mirage squadron was that there was to be photography to show the extent of the work carried out at the dam site. It stated: 'Aircraft should attract as little attention as possible'. The deputy secretary, Mr Glare, tells us that it was done so as to not alarm the Tasmanians. And Senator Evans says it was not a spy flight! What a pathetic defence. Everybody knows it was a spy flight. Everybody is rightly calling it a spy flight and Senator Evans had better accept the fact that it was. His pathetic defence is: 'Of course it was not, because if the photographs had been all right and if they had been needed they would have been produced in court'. But what if they had not been all right, as indeed was the case with the Mirage photos? What if they had not been needed in court? No one would have known about the flight. He was desperately anxious that it should all be done at 30,000 feet by an F111. Mr President, let me give you a classic example of the ineptitude of Senator Evans or of those who were assisting him in this exercise. We accept his word as to the conversation with Mr Scholes, although I think Mr Scholes should be asked some questions about it in another place at another time, and no doubt that will be done. For the time being let us accept Senator Gareth Evans's version. First of all he had to be advised to request information. It is a very interesting note of 11 April from Mr Glare. He said that he attended a conference with the Attorney, apparently on 5 April, and relayed the information to the Attorney- General in the presence of the Secretary to the Department, Mr Brazil. That was the information he had obtained about the F111 and its ability to fly at 30,000 feet, to take photographs and so on. Mr Glare went on to say: The Attorney-General inquired whether it would be necessary to consult the Minister for Defence. I ask you! Here is a request for a spy flight over a State, concerning proceedings against a State; yet the Attorney-General asked Mr Glare, his deputy secretary, whether it was necessary to consult the Minister for Defence. Mr Glare said 'I thought it was necessary', and that is how the Attorney-General came to speak to the Minister for Defence. It was on the advice of a deputy secretary to his Department. He does not even have sufficient political nous to understand what is required. The Attorney-General told us about speaking to the Minister for Defence. The first glimmer of political sanity was exhibited by Mr Scholes. The first thing Mr Scholes told the Attorney was: 'Put that in writing'. He had a bit of sense; we will find out how much on another occasion. The Attorney then had a letter prepared for him, I suppose again by one of his departmental officers, which was signed the next day, 6 April. The first spy flight took place as a result of Mr Glare's requests-he was executor for Senator Evans in all of these exercises-on Thursday, the 7th. The F111 was airborne, as Mr Glare tells us, at about 11.15 on Friday, the 8th. Senator Evans's letter of the 6th did not reach the office of the Minister for Defence until the 8th, after the spy flights had occurred. Are we not justified in talking about ineptitude? Mr Scholes never put in train the proper authorisations-which, of course, is so clearly revealed by Sir Neville McNamara. I now come to the ways in which Senator Evans tried to explain the matter away. His chief executor in this operation, Mr Glare, knew the facts on Friday, 8 April. Today we heard Senator Evans's pathetic efforts to explain the minute away. If Mr Glare knew that the F111-the aircraft that had been requested-was airborne at 11.15, is anybody suggesting that it was not airborne to carry out the flight? Was Mr Glare in any real doubt? Mr Glare, or somebody in the Attorney-General's Department, apparently told Senator Evans on Monday morning about the flight. It would have been an extraordinary delay if there had been doubt but officers had not found out about the flight even by Monday morning. The fat was well and truly in the fire on Monday morning because news about the flight had gone out. The Press was asking questions. I believe Senator Evans, although I did not hear him, said something about the matter on Sunday night. He certainly had plenty to say on AM on Monday morning. He issued a statement later that day. He was really under pressure. By that stage he had been reprimanded by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about it. His Prime Minister had told him that it was not on. I would love to have a record of the conversation between the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. That would really be worth having. I think it might be worth seeking some more information about that matter, because there seem to be some doubts about what was said that morning. Senator Evans, however, says he did not get confirmation of the whole truth until Tuesday afternoon, four days after Mr Glare knew the facts. Is he really going to blame Mr Glare? Is he going to say Mr Glare did not do his job? Of course, we know Senator Evans's views on ministerial responsibility: If Mr Glare failed so dismally in such a vital matter, of course the Attorney- General would accept responsibility and it would be a resigning matter. That is Senator Evans's own evaluation. We might hear some more about that too from the Attorney-General. We might have some more to say about it ourselves at a later stage. Senator Lewis —Perhaps he has changed his views. Senator DURACK —Yes, there seem to have been some remarkable changes in him in many ways since he got into government. On Tuesday afternoon, when he knew the full facts, did he tell anyone what they were? He had been talking his head off, as he usually does, on Sunday and Monday and he knew the full facts on Tuesday. The fat was in the fire again on Wednesday. Of course, when he had not said anything about the F111 flights, somebody tipped off the Press about the second flight. That was natural enough. The Press were all agog again on Wednesday. We waited all day Thursday-I was waiting all day Thursday-to hear what Senator Evans had to say. It was not until very late on Thursday afternoon that we had the statement from Senator Evans and Mr Scholes. What a pathetic exercise in total ineptitude, a schoolboy effort at evasion in giving us the whole truth. I do not want to say more about Senator Evans's pathetic efforts at his defence which he made at the Press Club and in the Senate. Here we have a sorry story of fumbling and bumbling; but I think there ought to be a bit of tumbling as well. Here we have an Attorney-General who, within five weeks of taking office, has been publicly reprimanded, humiliated by his Prime Minister. We have seen his pathetic performance in the Senate. I would be reluctant to lose Senator Evans as Attorney-General. As far as the Opposition is concerned, I think he will be a wonderful source of embarrassment to the Government. Why should the Opposition worry about that? However, I think that really on his performance and past statements, he ought to seriously consider-or perhaps the Prime Minister should consider-whether the Government can continue to afford having Senator Evans as its Attorney-General. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.29) —I am glad to see Senator Durack settling so quickly and cheerfully into the role of Opposition gadfly, a role that on the strength of his performance today he is going to be playing in Opposition for some considerable time yet. Clearly, Senator Durack is discovering, as I have been discovering over the last couple of weeks, that when it comes to criticism it is rather more blessed to give than to receive. I acknowledge, of course, that there are grounds for criticising me and my performance in this matter. I acknowledge that the use of the Mirage aircraft, for which I have to take some ministerial responsibility-much as it hurts-was extraordinarily provocative and justified the description 'silly and provocative ' that various people were giving to it at the time. I also acknowledge that the use of military aircraft flying at any height, whether at 200 or 30,000 feet, did involve a very considerable degree of political unwisdom given the obvious volatility and sensitivity of the Tasmanian dam situation. Those criticisms were, however, quite clearly and effectively conveyed to me by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on Monday morning. Indeed, I think the toe-cutter would have been proud of the Prime Minister on that occasion. I do not really need any extra assistance of the kind I have received this morning from Senator Durack to make me appreciate the force of those criticisms. In terms of the matter of public importance before us this morning, referring as it does to ineptitude, while I am naturally reluctant to concede or give any ground on the score of ineptitude, I am obliged to concede that my actions in the respects that I have identified did possibly lack something in eptitude. However, I do not believe that there are any grounds for the other criticisms that are made in the terms of the matter of public importance. The point that is made about my alleged utmost reluctance to admit the error of my ways is, I believe, utterly unfounded. I think it is fair to say that I have eaten enough humble pie on this matter in the last couple of weeks to keep Four 'n Twenty in business for a year . But the criticisms go further than that. One criticism was of my failure to explain in any credible sense what we were about. As to the matter of explanation, I really find it quite extraordinary on a reading of the media coverage of what happened in the Senate yesterday-indeed, on consideration of the way in which this matter has been approached by Opposition spokesmen and honourable senators today-that the fact that it was I, the Attorney-General, who tabled yesterday all the documents relating to the RAAF photographic survey has been totally overlooked. The documents were tabled at the first available parliamentary opportunity-the first opportunity on the first day of sitting of the new Parliament. They were not tabled in any way reluctantly, but out of a genuine commitment, which I endeavoured to articulate in this place yesterday, to the principles of freedom of information. I believe it is entirely proper and appropriate when an incident of this kind occurs in which actions need to be explained that all the documentation and the sequence of events-muddled as they are undoubtedly were, as is revealed in the documents-should be put in the public record. What it then comes down to is not a failure to explain, because there has been ample explanation of what happened; it is the failure or alleged failure on my part to explain credibly just how it is that I came to embark upon what is described in the matter of public importance as 'this adventure'. I think it is fair that I be given another opportunity, as I sought to do yesterday, to put briefly on the record not a defence of my actions but rather what I have described as further and better particulars which explain why I acted as I did. In legal terms, I would describe it as a plea of mitigation that at least there be some understanding of what the motivation and the circumstances were at the time that the relevant decision was made a couple of weeks ago. In that respect, the four points I made yesterday deserve a degree of repetition. There were four factors very clearly in my mind on that Wednesday a fortnight ago when I requested that the photographic survey be undertaken. The first consideration in my mind was the necessity to monitor the situation on the ground in the South West wilderness area to determine whether what was happening there was, in fact, causing irreparable damage to the environment. The Government made a clear commitment during the election campaign-overwhelmingly endorsed by the great majority of Australians except those in Tasmania, as I readily acknowledge-to protect this area. We had clearly intimated and articulated our course of action; clearly, that won the support of a great majority of Australians. We regarded ourselves, as we do now, as having a very clear obligation to this nation as a whole and, indeed, to the international community to protect this area from wanton depredation. That involves the taking of a number of steps, not only the promulgation of regulations now to be supplemented by the further legislation introduced last night, but also the taking of the first available opportunity to institute legal proceedings to enforce those regulations. A further legal step potentially available to us was the seeking of an interim injunction to hold the situation intact until such time as the full scale legal proceedings for a permanent injunction could be brought to hearing and determination. Against that background it was perceived to be necessary-I think that perception will be understood-to maintain a fairly close scrutiny of what was happening to ensure that the situation did not get completely out of hand. Given the enthusiasm with which Mr Gray and his Government have been pursuing the devastation of the environment down there, that was a very real concern on our part. That was the first consideration-the need to monitor the situation as best we could. The second consideration which we had very much to the forefront of our minds concerned the extraordinary series of statements made by Mr Gray over the preceding days and weeks. The statements indicated that physical confrontation and violence were very far from being ruled out from the array of tactics that Mr Gray had in mind to defend what he is claiming to be the interests of the States. The weekend preceding the RAAF flights, statements by Mr Gray were universally reported in the nation's Press. They were to the effect that if anyone came physically on to the dam site or the area occupied by the Hydro- Electric Commission, that person would be subjected to arrest. That stricture extended to Australian Federal Police officers engaged in the enforcement of Commonwealth law. I would have thought, in terms of an understanding by a political figure of the legal obligations and constraints of one's office, that that ranks as one of the most despicable demonstrations on the part of a senior political figure of a failure to appreciate the legal ground rules within which this country and its component parts operate. It is one of the most despicable such illustrations in the history of this country. Faced as we were with that kind of extravagant language and threats from Mr Gray, obviously we had very much in our minds that any such monitoring of the situation on the ground would be better coped with by means other than those involving the physical presence in the area of personnel, whether they be members of the Australian Federal Police or anyone else. We were naturally led, as a result of that train of reasoning, to contemplate some form of aerial reconnaissance or aerial photographic survey. The next consideration we had in mind-I had it very much in mind in deciding as I did to make this request to the Defence Department-was the desire, given the Gray arguments, to act in such a way that there would be no overt provocation, certainly no confrontation. I have already mentioned the fact that we wanted no confrontation, but we were equally concerned that there be no provocation. There was a very inflammatory situation prevailing in Tasmania. Spokesmen from my own party down there were using language which indicated the very profound concern on the part of Tasmanians generally that the situation could very well escalate if there were perceived to be very overtly provocative action by the Commonwealth. That in turn suggested that the means employed to monitor the situation to gather evidence of the kind I have been mentioning should be means that did not involve overt provocation and did not involve, to use the language of my departmental officer, alarm to people on the ground and produce the result of stirring up a potentially very inflammatory situation. Bearing all those factors in mind, the fourth consideration became one involving the best way of satisfying all those goals, simultaneously getting high quality aerial survey photographic evidence that could be useful in establishing precisely what was happening and getting that evidence in a quality form and by a means which did not involve provocation or inflammation of the situation. The conclusion I was led to-I accept full responsibility for it-was that military aircraft with the appropriate highly sophisticated photographic equipment available to them were the best means. I satisfied myself that there was no question as to the legality of the use of the aircraft for these purposes . I make it clear that there was no question as to the illegality. In fact, it was perfectly legal and perfectly routine for such requests for defence aid to the civil power in situations of this kind to be made. Having established all those things, I acted accordingly, made the oral request to the Defence Minister , supplemented it with the written request and then, of course, knew no more about what had occurred until the story broke in the Press on Sunday. A little more perhaps ought to be said about the question of the routine character of these flights and the legality of the way in which they were, in fact, conducted. There has been a really quite deliberate attempt on the part of the former Attorney-General, Senator Durack, to fudge the question of legality. In one sentence he is talking about constitutional law, in a second sentence about constitutional principle and in a third sentence about the proper procedures of consultation and so on. The whole thing is just a dreadful muddle in Senator Durack's mind. The reality of the matter is that the law on this issue is perfectly clear and the practice that has prevailed in this area is perfectly clear. For example, it was articulated by none other than the former Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, in answer to Question No. 335, recorded in Hansard at page 1254 on 7 April 1978. In the course of a long answer about the formal procedures that are required enabling the regular forces to be called out in cases of, firstly, aid to the civil community for anti-terrorist activities and, secondly, natural disasters, Mr Killen gave a perfectly accurate account of what the procedures were. I am happy to table this answer in due course to add to the pile of documents which have been waded through by the bush and Philadelphia lawyers on the other side. The particular passage that is most relevant is the one which concludes his answer. It states: Where the likelihood of the Defence Force members being involved in the use of force does not exist, for example, to deal with a natural disaster, or to carry out a bomb disposal task under such circumstances, there is no requirement for call out. The Defence Force acts only in response to requests from the responsible civil authorities in accordance with guidelines and instructions endorsed by the Minister for Defence. The guidelines and instructions he is, no doubt, referring to in that answer, are the guidelines which I have already tabled in this place today which set out in very elaborate detail and in a form which it is inappropriate for me to try to read into the record at this stage, but- Senator Durack —Why don't you read out paragraph 20 of them? Senator Harradine —Read out paragraph 14. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will read out anything honourable senators would like me to read out if I have time to do it. But-let me just read out some of the relevant paragraphs. Paragraph 3 states: . . . the definition of 'aid to the civil power' is: 'Defence Force aid to the Commonwealth and/or State Governments and their civil authorities in their performance of law enforcement tasks.' This document deals with situations other than counter-terrorist operations. Senator Harradine —Paragraph 14. Senator GARETH EVANS —Paragraph 14 states: Members of the Defence Force providing aid to the civil power are to remain under Defence Force command, and the commander of the Defence Force element- Not the Chief of Defence Force Staff but the Defence force element- is to act in accordance with the directions given by the Minister for Defence and subsequently issued through command channels. Senator Harradine —Where was the direction from the Minister for Defence? Senator GARETH EVANS —The directions from the Minister for Defence, as I understand it, are standing directions applicable in these circumstances which we are in fact reading from now. The paragraph continues: In executing the directions given by the Minister, the commander of the Defence Force element is to act in response to approaches from and in co-ordination with the appropriate civil authorities, recognizing that he remains accountable for his actions. It is simply a matter of how one construes that paragraph and whether it applies in general terms or whether it applies to each particular instance. If one looks at the key paragraphs governing the provision of aid in no force situations, the situation is made perfectly clear. Paragraph 17 states: Where there is no likelihood that Defence Force personnel will be required to use force, personnel and equipment may be used without 'call out' under the following conditions: Those conditions are set out in paragraphs a, b and c. Paragraph a states: The approach is made by a Police Commissioner, his delegate or an authority superior to them, through established State and Commonwealth channels. . . There is a further reference to aid being approved by the Chief of Defence Force Staff. It is clear that there was no such approval by the CDFS in this case. That has been readily and cheerfully acknowledged. There is no reference in paragraph 17, paragraph 18 or paragraph 20 which relates to an urgent request- this was perceived by the military as an urgent request, rather wrongly in fact- to specific ministerial approval. In any event, ministerial approval was given; there was simply a failure of communication down the line. Everyone has been playing a game of pass the parcel in this instance except the two Ministers concerned who fully and cheerfully accept, as we are obliged to do-we did not see it very often during the tenure of the last Government-responsibility for what was obviously a series of failures of communication both down and back up the line until after the event. Senator Chaney —What followed the acceptance of responsibility? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is our responsibility. We accept it. We made that perfectly clear. Senator Durack —What was the theory of ministerial responsibility you propounded on Costigan? Senator GARETH EVANS —In a matter of profound seriousness and gravity I cannot remember the exact formula I employed but it was to the effect that the Minister in question was obliged to resign. This is not alleged by anyone to be a matter of such gravity. It involved neither a breach of the law nor any fundamental breach of propriety, nor does it involve any breach of the explicit language of the directions under which the Defence Force operates in these particular matters. There is no doubt about the formal legality of what happened, there is no doubt about the technical appropriateness of what happened and there is no doubt about the legitimacy of what occurred in terms of its consistency with the ordinary operational and training activities of the Royal Australian Air Force. The particular flight of the F111 that I mentioned before in fact, occurred in the context of an additional leg-a rerouting, if one likes to call it that-of a flight which involved, as I said in Question Time, surveillance of oil rigs in Bass Strait, the Defence Force Academy site in Canberra and some training photographs of the Sydney-Gosford area. It was in the context of a slight addition to that particular flight. There are arguments about the common political sense of what occurred. I have conceded as much as any reasonable person, let alone any reasonable politician, could be obliged to concede in these circumstances. I think the terms of the matter of public importance are misconceived in the way in which it is expressed and the force, vigour, diversity and extent of the criticism that is implied. Some criticism is appropriate. The force of that criticism has been openly acknowledged. An explanation has been given fully and frankly of everything that occurred. I really believe it is appropriate that the Opposition devote its time from now on to pursuing matters of rather more fundamental importance to the future of this country. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.48) —I will put aside Senator Evans's complete immaturity in dreaming up this action against my State in the first place. Instead, I will deal with the legality of those flights. I will read a short section from a memo written about this incident by Air Marshal McNamara, who is Chief of Defence Force Staff. He stated: . . . in particular I am extremely concerned that the matter appears to have been handled as a routine task within your Directorate of Operations and authorization given without your or my knowledge. At the very least this action demonstrates a lack of awareness of the political sensitivities and even deeper consequences of the use of Defence Force assets in an issue such as the Franklin River Dam. What are those deeper consequences that the Chief of Defence Force Staff is hinting at? Senator Evans has not answered that question. The Chief of Defence Force Staff thought it was so highly provocative that it could lead to Australian confronting Australian. He considered it of such great concern that he stated: I find it equally disturbing that in such a matter I was not given the opportunity to provide timely advice to the Minister in terms of my responsibilities as his principal military adviser. He made it very clear that he would have advised the Minister not to go that way . The attack on the Premier of my State, as can be seen by the statements that have been put out by the Chief of Defence Force Staff, has certainly not been substantiated. Senator Gareth Evans has only indicated his dislike of the Premier and his arrogant assumption that he is the one with the power to use the Defence Force and will use it over the will of the Premier and of my State- Senator Coates —Give us an example of circumstances in which you think it could be used. Senator WALTERS —I would not interject if I were you; you are in enough trouble back home as it is; I would keep very quiet. Equally, I would give a warning to Senator Grimes and to Senator Tate. Senator Hearn is not even in the chamber. I turn now to the circumstances under which permission was given by the Minister for Defence and the legality or otherwise of the flights. First, I refer to the misinformation involved. Very clearly, the Minister stated in his letter of 12 April: I . . . was advised that it was a re-routed training flight- He gave permission when he was advised that it was just a re-routed training flight. Next I come to the timing of the Attorney-General seeking permission from the Minister for Defence. I would be very grateful if the Attorney-General could answer as to the times and dates to which I shall refer. Again, in regard to the misinformation aspect, Mr Scholes was advised that the flight had been re-routed . Compare that with the urgency expressed to Group Captain Waterfield, who was told that it must happen and must happen very quickly. He said he was told that the task was urgent and should be completed before the court case, which he anticipated would be the next day. That does not lead me to believe that it was just a re-routed training flight. It was secret. As Senator Durack has already stated, the task message in regard to the flight indicated that the aircraft should attract as little attention as possible. A Mirage sent in at 200 feet was to attract as little attention as possible! Perhaps it was believed that the operation could really be a mirage or that the pilot might attempt to fly backwards. Secondly, we were told that when the F111 was finally sent in it did not attract any attention: ' . . . there is no widespread public knowledge of this RF-111 mission at present'. The Attorney-General was assured that at the moment nobody knew about the F111. It was also said that the Attorney was told that the flight would be at 30,000 feet, so that it would not disturb the Tasmanians. I would like to point out that Tasmanians do not scare easily. I invite the Attorney-General to recall what happened on 5 March. Then he will understand exactly what I have said-Tasmanians do not scare easily. We were assured by the Defence Minister that he was advised it was a re-routed training flight, yet we have information in these papers that Mr Glare asked Squadron Leader Kennedy about the availability of flights and was told that the reconnaissance aircraft was not available; that No. 6 Squadron would need to have a special camera fitted at the special air navigation unit at East Sale. So it was not just a reconnaissance flight that was sent out; a lot had to be done. I believe that a tremendous amount of work had to be undertaken on the F111 to make it adaptable. The most important thing I find in reading the papers is in regard to the timing of the request by the Attorney-General to the Minister for Defence. Tuesday, 5 April, appears to have been a very busy day. At 9.30 a.m. Mr Len Glare, the Deputy Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, through a personal friend, made the necessary inquiries regarding the availability of aerial photographs. Some time later that day he met the Attorney-General and was asked by him if permission was needed from the Minister for Defence. He answered that it was and the Attorney-General said that he would ring the Minister-ring him, not talk directly to him. Mr Glare was told a short time later that permission had been granted. This occurred on Tuesday, 5 April, at some point between 9.30 in the morning and one o'clock. Senator Gareth Evans —Not one o'clock. Read the other minute. Senator WALTERS —I have read all of the minutes. According to the Assistant Chief of Defence Force Staff, Mr Glare rang at one o'clock on 5 April and said that permission had been granted. There was no query about that statement. Senator Gareth Evans —Have you read Mr Glare's subsequent minute in which the officer in question cheerfully changes his mind and says he was wrong? It was three o'clock. Come on, be honest. The papers are in front of you. Senator WALTERS —Then we have the situation that at one o'clock Mr Glare rang Group Captain Waterfield and said, as I have stated, that the Minister had given permission, and procedures went ahead. Because the Minister had given permission Mr Glare was given direct liaison with Headquarters Operation Command and consequently no superior officers were told. Then we come to the three letters that I believe are the most important. Senator Gareth Evans, in his letter of 6 April, said to the Minister for Defence: My Department will be getting in touch with the Director of Air Force Operations later today- That was 6 April. Indeed, it had already been done on 5 April. We then have the letter of 12 April from Mr Scholes in which he says: As I recall our conversation following the Cabinet Meeting on Tuesday 5th April , you asked if I would agree to utilise an F111 over Tasmania . . . I understood that arangements had been made and it was to take place at 1500. It was to take place at 1500 hours. The Minister for Defence said that the meeting took place following the Cabinet meeting. Senator Gareth Evans, in his letter of 20 April, says, no, he met the Minister before the Cabinet meeting; he spoke to him before 2.30 p.m. Thus, we have a situation in which Mr Len Glare, according to the Assistant Chief of Defence Force Staff, rang Group Captain Waterfield at one o'clock-- Senator Gareth Evans —Three o'clock. Senator WALTERS —Mr Glare says that he thought it was about 3 p.m. Senator Gareth Evans —So does Group Captain Waterfield; why don't you read it? Senator WALTERS —But the direction we have before us states that it was definitely given at one o'clock. Group Captain Waterfield makes no comment regarding the time. I refer to the minute by the Assistant Chief of Defence Force Staff which states: . . . Mr Glare telephoned Group Captain Waterfield at about 1300 hours on 5 April. That is, one o'clock. He states further: He requested urgent photographic coverage of the Franklin dam area, 'ideally before the Court hearing began'. He assured GPCAPT Waterfield that the Minister for Defence had approved the proposal and that a written request would follow. On that basis, GPCAPT Waterfield authorised direct liaison between Mr Glare and HQ Operations Command on details of the request. That was at one o'clock. Senator Gareth Evans said he verbally asked permission of the Minister for Defence at 2.30. The Minister for Defence said it was quite a considerable time later, and Senator Gareth Evans assured us that no arrangements were made anyway until the following day, 6 April. This place has been misled by the Attorney-General. Because he has been caught with his pants down, with his streaker's defence, he has tried to get out of this in the most flippant of manners. He has used his portfolio, which is one of the most responsible of this Government, with all the security associated with it, in the most flippant manner possible. He has assured us, and he has tabled a document today relating to defence force aid to the civil powers. He has gone on with that. When were those procedures brought in? They were introduced in September 1978 and they were laid down especially to overcome the difficulties and the anomalies that were apparent during the Cyclone Tracy disaster. They have nothing to do with areas like the South West of Tasmania or anything similar. They were brought in and laid down to overcome the problems associated with Cyclone Tracy. Senator Evans is now attempting to use them to enable the Commonwealth to spy on our State's affairs to obtain evidence for a court case. Mr Deputy President, I believe there are a lot more questions to be answered in relation to the tabling of the documents. I have many more questions on those documents that I believe need an answer, and I am only too sorry that my time has now expired and I am unable to do so. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.7) —Mr Deputy President, may I first congratulate you on your accession to this post. I am sure we will have co-operation from you and that you will have co-operation from us in the future. Nothing would demonstrate more why we are sitting on this side of the House and why members of the former Government are sitting on that side of the House than the performances today in Question Time, the bringing forward of this matter of public importance, and the performances of some members- unfortunately, some of the Tasmanian members-of the House of Representatives last night. We in this country are faced with record unemployment, a record Budget deficit, an economic recession of unprecedented proportions since the 1930s and a problem between the Tasmanian and Federal governments over the proposed construction of a dam. We have profound problems in the State of Tasmania where more than 20,000 people are unemployed and industry is running down. We have a great need for proper economic development in this country. My colleagues and I, none of whom has ever faced a Question Time before, entered this Parliament with the Opposition insisting that we have a Question Time on the opening day and that we sit two days rather than one. One presumes that was so that they could have another crack at us at Question Time. Now, after two Question Times and with the opportunity presented by the discussion of a matter of public importance, practically no questions have been asked about the state of the economy in this country or about the number of unemployed. We have just had a series of nit-picking questions about this incident. The only subject that the Opposition is willing to bring up as a matter of public importance is these military flights. I suggest that it is a pathetic performance. I suggest that it demonstrates-- Senator Walters —You ask the people back home what they think. You ought to go back to your State for a while. Senator GRIMES —It demonstrates, Senator Walters, through you, Mr Deputy President, why you are sitting way back there and why we are sitting on this side. Senator Walters, in her usual manner, indulges in the sort of personal attack she carried out on the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). She spent 10 minutes talking about the time of one o'clock; about a minute that was tabled in this place by Senator Evans, among many other minutes. Of course, she refused repeatedly to turn a few pages to find the second minute which Mr Glare, the Deputy Secretary, gave to Senator Evans and in which he explained how it was his understanding that the phone call was in fact a couple of hours later. Group Captain Waterfield did not dispute the fact that that recollection was right. The whole basis of Senator Walters's argument seemed to be about this one o' clock-3 o'clock nonsense. That was the best she could do. She spent 10 minutes of her 15 minutes on that aspect and then bewailed the fact that she did not have more time to go on with similar nonsense, I suppose. I should like to repeat that Senator Evans made a decision to use military aircraft in this situation. It is a decision which he has admitted was unwise. It is a decision that the Government has admitted was unwise. He came into this place yesterday and today and tabled a great volume of documents. He has appeared on television and in front of the National Press Club and has been open . He has explained what happened, how he regretted what happened and why it happened. Yet we have the extraordinary circumstance of Senator Durack coming in here and presenting a matter of public importance which refers to 'the ineptitude of the Attorney-General' and the 'spy planes fiasco'. The subject matter contains emotive terms like this. Senator Durack suggested during the discussion of this matter of public importance that Senator Evans has failed to explain his actions in any credible sense. The fact that this matter of public importance has been raised may surprise the people in this country. They may have thought the Opposition would have had more serious things to bring up as matters of public importance. Senator Durack, who brought forward this matter of public importance and used terms such as ' incredible events' and 'total ineptitude', has a record, as Attorney-General, for those very things beyond comparison in this country. I remind honourable senators of the times we spent in this place considering bottom-of-the-harbour tax dodging and the activities of the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office in Perth. I remind honourable senators of the difficulty we had in dragging information out of the very man who brought forward this matter of public importance today. We spent day after day and week after week until we finally got to the bottom of the situation-although I am not sure that we ever did get to the bottom of it. Senator Evans, in comparison with that, came into this place, tabled all the documents and answered every question that has been put to him, both inside this place and outside this place. To suggest for a minute that he has not been able to explain his actions in any credible sense and that he has been reluctant to admit the error of his ways is, I think, an incredible statement to make. The thing that seems to worry Senator Walters and some of the members of the House of Representatives from Tasmania was that Senator Evans-he admitted that he was unwise to do so-asked that a military aircraft go down to Tasmania to take some photographs to assist in a court case which was coming up. Senator Walters and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) called in the past for the use of the military in Tasmania when there was an airlines dispute. In the last election campaign, Mr Anthony offered the services of the police to go and assist the State police in what was going on at the Franklin Dam at that time. I can remember Mr Hodgman, the honourable member for Denison, appearing on television and saying that he was proud that his Prime Minister was willing to use the Air Force in airlines disputes in Tasmania. Senator Gareth Evans —And Goodluck called for the Army last week. Senator GRIMES —Last week Mr Goodluck called for the Army to be sent into South West Tasmania to ensure that the Franklin Dam would be built. What sort of hypocrisy have we here? It ranks with the hypocrisy of the honourable member for Denison when he was in the upper House in Tasmania. He masquaeraded as an independent and called for national intervention and a national inquiry into the flooding of Lake Pedder because it was an area of national importance. This ranks with the hypocrisy of the former Minister for Administrative Services who I see at the moment is not even on the front bench of the Opposition. It ranks with his hypocrisy in announcing that the Federal Government was going to intervene in relation to Fraser Island against the wishes of the Queensland Government, against the wishes of the local trade union movement and against the then views of the Queensland Opposition on the basis that it was an area of national importance involving not only Queenslanders but also all Australians. We have this incredible performance by these people who see in the short term populace votes in this issue. They come along and do things such as Mr Newman did. He tried deliberately yesterday for publicity purposes to get himself thrown out of the House of Representatives. My colleague the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) very wisely did not fall for that one and did not call for Mr Newman to be thrown out. Mr Gray has been escalating this matter and trying to drum up violence on this issue for the last three or four months. Senator Peter Baume —That is an outrageous thing to say. Senator GRIMES —He has used emotive terms continually about those who are demonstrating in the area. It is not an outrageous thing to say. He has said that if the Commonwealth policemen went into the area his local police would arrest the Commonwealth policemen. He had to be corrected by the secretary of the local police association who quite rightly said that the local police would not do this. He said that they would sit down and discuss with the Commonwealth Police what was to happen and pointed out that they would have to accept Commonwealth law under those circumstances. This sad and sorry situation has been going on for weeks and weeks. Members of the Opposition, in the words of Senator Missen today, will grasp at any red herring to get away from what this debate really is about. It is about Tasmania' s economic development, the wisdom of putting all our eggs into this one basket as far as power development is concerned and the fact that we have more than 20, 000 people unemployed in Tasmania and a State Government that wishes to use this large amount of capital expenditure without any guarantee that any industrial development will result from it and without any overall economic plan for Tasmania. Senator Walters —Do you believe that it was provocative? Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator asks whether I believe that the spy flight, as she calls it, was provocative. The expression is a ludicrous one. I do not believe that it was provocative. I believe that it was unwise. I believe that the so-called provocation has been nicely stirred up by Mr Gray, Senator Walters and their colleagues because they do not want to debate the real issues which are the real problems that face Tasmania. They are not concerned about the jobs of the workers on the West Coast. They are not concerned about the jobs of future Tasmanians. They are not concerned about the future development of Tasmania. They are concerned about their short term political futures. I think that is the problem which bedevils Tasmania at the moment. That is one of the problems that bedevil the whole economic situation in this country. Senator Walters told us that when we sit again she will ask many more questions . Apparently we will have to sit through two more Question Times during which time those people who bother to listen to parliamentary broadcasts in this country will be bored stiff by the sort of nit-picking nonsense that we have had during Question Time and the discussion of the matter of public importance today . I believe that they will reasonably ask themselves: 'What is the Opposition all about? Are its members really only concerned about the actions of the Attorney-General?' I remind the Senate: These are actions that the Attorney- General admits were unwise. He has said that they will not occur again. Will those listeners really be concerned about whether a telephone call was made at one o'clock one afternoon or at 3 o'clock one afternoon? Will they really be so concerned about a typographical error in a Press statement on which a member of the Opposition wastes a question by getting up and asking: 'Was it Thursday or Friday', or: 'Was it the 8th or the 9th?'. This is a pathetic performance. If Ministers of the previous Government had been as open and as willing to answer questions about difficult situations, as Senator Gareth Evans has been, if they had been willing to get up at the first opportunity, as Senator Gareth Evans has done, and table all relevant documents in this place and if they had been willing to be as open and as frank as he has been, some of them might have stayed Ministers a little bit longer and maybe-although even that would not have saved them-the previous Government might have stayed in government a little bit longer. The Opposition failed in government and, on the first two days of this Parliament, it has failed in opposition. I suspect that it will stay in opposition a long time. The Opposition should let us get on with the proper business that this Parliament is all about-and that is debating the real problems which face this country. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.16) — The Senate is debating the following matter of public importance: The total ineptitude of the Attorney-General in the Tasmanian spy planes fiasco , his failure to explain his actions in any credible sense and his utmost reluctance to admit the error of his ways. The debate on this matter of public importance is quite justifiable in view of the fact that the spy flights deal with issues of Federal-State relations, democratic government in Australia, the integrity of the Australian defence forces and ministerial responsibility. On the previous occasion when the question of Defence Force aid to the civil power was debated in this Parliament, it was over the Hilton bombing affair. Even on that occasion some members of the then Opposition, including myself, questioned the appropriateness or otherwise of the use of defence forces in aid of the civil power at that time. Quite clearly, on this occasion there has been an unjustified and an unauthorised use of the Defence Force in aid of the civil power. That is a question that strikes at the heart of democracy. Let me prove to the Senate that the spy flights over Tasmania were unauthorised. It is already admitted that they were unjustified. This morning the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) tabled a document entitled 'Defence Instructions (General)' which dealt with the procedures to be followed when requests were made for Defence Force aid to the civil power. This is in situations other than counter-terrorist operations. The document is entitled 'Policy and procedures'. It is quite clear in that document that any request must be forwarded through and approved by the Chief of Defence Force Staff. In this case the CDFS was not even notified, let alone did he give approval. I quote from document 25 tabled by the Attorney-General, which is a note from the CDFS in which he says: We discussed this matter very briefly on Monday the 11th of April- That is, of course, after the flights- and I now wish to advise you more formally of my concern regarding a number of aspects of the generation and handling of this task; in particular I am extremely concerned that the matter appears to have been handled as a routine task within your Directorate of Operations and authorization given without your or my knowledge. At the very least this action demonstrates a lack of awareness of the political sensitivities and even deeper consequences of the use of Defence Force assets in an issue such as the Franklin River Dam. That note is from Sir Neville McNamara, the Air Chief Marshal, Chief of Australia's Defence Force. If that minute, which was tabled in the Parliament, revealing his concern about the misuse of the Defence Force in aid of the civil power, is not a matter of public importance, I do not know what is. Nor were the flights authorised by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). Senator Gareth Evans —Not true. Senator HARRADINE —No document is contained in the documents which the Attorney- General tabled which gives authorisation. Senator Gareth Evans —Are you accusing me of lying? Senator HARRADINE —That remains to be seen, perhaps the week after next. Senator Gareth Evans —You will have to establish your grounds very firmly before you do that. Senator HARRADINE —I put myself in the same position that the Attorney-General was in when he attacked the previous Attorney-General. He was questioning him, almost calling him a liar, on the matter of no documents being tabled. Now there is no document. Frank Cranston, in the Canberra Times today, had this to say: The documents indicate also that Mr Scholes never formally authorised the flights but they were approved by a RAAF officer at the request of a deputy secretary in the Attorney-General's Department, who was a personal friend. There are no documents here which show that despite the fact that the Minister for Defence requested the Attorney-General to put the request in writing he has not responded in turn. That is an argument for the Attorney-General to take up with him but the proper procedure to be followed would have been for it to be authorised in accordance with the document which the Attorney-General tabled today from the Minister for Defence. Paragraph 14 of that document states: Members of the Defence Force providing aid to the civil power are to remain under Defence Force command, and the commander of the Defence Force element is to act in accordance with directions given by the Minister for Defence and subsequently issued through command channels. That was not even done on this occasion. The Attorney-General must admit that. According to the documents that he has placed before the Parliament it is quite clear that it was he and his Department which made the request and the individual directions were made through his Department to the lower ranks in the Royal Australian Air Force and not through the proper command channels. Surely that is a matter of grave concern to this Parliament which is interested in the upholding of civil liberties, which is interested in the upholding of the Constitution and which is interested particularly in the upholding of the integrity of the Defence Force of this country. Senator Gareth Evans —Would you like to read out the rest of that document, including paragraphs 17 and 18? Senator HARRADINE —The document has been tabled and I will not waste the time I have reading out the rest of it. Despite what Senator Grimes has just said-he refused to admit that it was provocative-the Attorney-General, did say in his defence, that it was extraordinarily provocative. That was Senator Evans's response today. He now admits that the spy flights were extraordinarily provocative. A number of other questions of importance will emerge. For example, we have not been told what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said. I will come to that in a few moments. There is no documentation at all of that, no letter from the Prime Minister, in the documents that have been tabled. There is not even a note as to what he said. Maybe it would need to have been written on asbestos paper. There is another aspect of this matter which would interest the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). In the normal course of events all air traffic controllers in south-eastern Australia would have been advised of the flights, if only for the reason that they might have been vectoring a civil aircraft in the same flight path. Telex No. 536, document 3 of the tabled Defence Department documents, at item U states: Aircraft should attract as little attention as possible. Two questions arise from that. Firstly, was this instruction spontaneously evolved in the Air Force or was it on the advice of the client department; namely, the Attorney-General's Department? Secondly, I point out that amongst all of the detailed documents we have there is no telex or record of any advice having been given to air traffic controllers in south-eastern Australia, to Launceston control or to the Hydro-Electric Commission operations unit in South- West Tasmania which has helicopters operating in that area. There is nothing in the document to say that that advice was given. One assumes and hopes that it was. Just for the record, I would like to know between now and two weeks' time when were the appropriate traffic controllers advised and who were they. The Attorney-General, having admitted that it was an extraordinarily provocative action and that it showed his political unwisdom-they are his words-has said that he has been prepared to eat and has eaten humble pie. Senator Gareth Evans —Lots. Senator HARRADINE —Lots; bags of humble pie. That is good enough for schoolboys but it is not good enough for a Minister. A Minister should stand up on a matter of such public importance. The integrity of the Defence Force is at stake and the misuse of the Defence Force in the aiding of the civil power is unwarranted and unjustified. Senator Grimes did not address the issue at all. All he said was that there were not a great many questions on unemployment. There were a number of questions on this issue. The Notice Paper shows that the National Economic Summit Conference documents are going to be tabled in the Parliament. I have not seen them tabled as yet. Senator Gareth Evans —They were tabled last night. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry. I have not got them. Senator Gareth Evans —That shows your sense of priorities. Senator HARRADINE —My sense of priorities was to tackle those documents because one issue relating to unemployment was not even mentioned at the Summit. I find that quite extraordinary. I will leave that matter to another time. Let me come back to the fact that there are no documents before us containing the responses of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in this matter. The Prime Minister of Australia was elected on the slogan 'Bringing Australians Together'. The type of action that has been taken by the Attorney-General is going to split Australia and it is going to go to the heart of the Federation. If I were the Attorney-General I would accept the criticism like a man and, over this issue, I would very seriously consider resigning. Unless he does resign, any future proposals brought in by him will have us wondering whether they contain the characteristics of fairness, reasonableness, reserve and respect for the opinions of others-qualities which should be possessed by an Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. These qualities have not been shown in this spy flight issue. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.32) —We are at the beginning of a new session of parliament, the Thirty-third Parliament. Yesterday we were all sworn in. There was great ceremony. The Governor-General spoke to us and bands played. It was a portentous occasion. The conservative coalition now in opposition is flexing its muscles. We are now engaged in the first significant exercise of criticism available to the Opposition in the Senate-that is, of course, a matter of public importance. That is a vehicle of the greatest significance in the democracy of this country and in the values and operation of this Parliament. I cast my mind over the many urgent problems that confront this nation at the present time. They include the state of the economy, unemployment and how we are going to cope with automation. Those problems are there in serried ranks. They all demand urgent attention. Indeed, there are many themes of great public importance, of real public importance, that I suggest to the new Opposition it might have chosen with some justification and dignity. Instead we find this lightweight Gilbert and Sullivan-type issue. It is such a Mickey Mouse-type issue in fact that as a party the Australian Democrats found some difficulty in steeling ourselves to take part in it. But there are some things that need to be said and we intend to say them. I must say to members of the coalition parties, more in sadness than in anger, that we hope that they settle down soon and start aiming their guns in more suitable and useful directions. When that happens we will be glad to join them in carrying out the proper function that we and the Opposition have of criticising the Government, of testing it and attacking it, where necessary, for what it is doing on matters of consequence and substance. For a variety of reasons the Australian Democrats do not support this matter of public importance in the context I have described. This is the beginning of a new parliament and a matter such as this should not have been brought to this Senate today. As a consequence, we attack and oppose the proposition. To support that view, I begin by quoting from a distinguished compatriot of all honourable senators, Spike Milligan. He is one of many members of the public who have been thoroughly bewildered by this extraordinary manifestation on the political scene at this time-the so-called spy flight issue. The words 'spy flight' are very serious and portentous words to use. They have connotations of enmity, violence and foreign states which have to be attacked. I suggest to honourable senators that there is a degree of mischief in the use of those words which this nation ought not to tolerate. I refer again to Spike Milligan because I think his comments are a very good beginning to what I want to say. A letter appeared in the Weekend Australian of 16 and 17 April. It stated: As Alice said . . . Unless I am losing my reason, do I understand (Franklin River dam) the RAAF is not allowed to fly over Australian territory. As Alice said. 'It's all very strange.'-Spike Milligan, Woy Woy, N.S.W. I find myself very much in agreement with the opinion expressed by Spike Milligan. A number of other people who have written to the newspapers have taken that view. One might ask, with good reason, just what all this fuss is about. Is Tasmania after all an enemy or a foreign state? Is it a place that is on the point of seceding? Is it a sort of Falklands Island that is not part of this country? Have we really reached the stage where we cannot say any more that there is only one sovereign state on this continent and the islands off it and that that nation and sovereign state is called Australia? I find it incredible that we have reached the stage where it has become an issue of criticism that Australian military aircraft fly over Australian soil. That is not to say that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), although he seems to have admitted to the first part of what is contained in this matter of public importance, was totally inept. He has not admitted that but he has admitted to a degree of ineptitude. If he had done that, far be it from me to have to defend him. I will deal with other points raised in the matter of public importance as I come to them. I think that the intent of this matter of public importance is to create mischief. Indeed, other areas of debate concerning South West Tasmania do have this element of mischief. They do raise, inappropriately and excessively, the totally specious issue of States' rights. That is not to say that States' rights are not important or valuable because of course they are. The Australian Democrats are the first people to support States' rights. Devolution of power is a part of our policy. Senator Walters —You don't know what that means. Senator MASON —Senator Walters can read our policy any time. I will send her copies of it so that she can inform herself of our policies and improve her mind . In Australia we have a three-tiered system of government. For instance, local authorities, councils and the like are regularly overruled by State governments in what is seen as an overriding State interest that should prevail over purely local considerations. That happens virtually every day. Members of the coalition parties do not jump up and down about it. It is a reasonable part of the devolution of power. It seems to me equally reasonable that the same process should prevail when something which is demonstrably of national or international importance is going on in any part of Australia. It ought to be a matter in which the Federal Government is able to take some action. I think there is a plain need and a reasonable case for the Commonwealth to act in this regard. I must go as far as to say that those persons who are taking a strong view on this issue are divisive in the community. In my opinion they are meddling with something which is very dangerous indeed. It is dangerous, for example, that Queenslanders should be set against New South Welshmen and that Tasmanians should be set against Victorians. It is dangerous that indeed we should preside over some sort of idiotic Balkanisation of this great Commonwealth and destroy it by creating this sort of idiotic minuscule issue. It is that. I will examine that as I proceed. Let us look at the text of the matter of public importance. It states: The total ineptitude of the Attorney-General in the Tasmanian spy planes fiasco - As I have said, the Attorney-General has admitted to that degree of ineptitude. I would not have done so in his place but that is his business. The matter of public importance continues: his failure to explain his actions in any credible sense- That is the second point which has been raised. I find that very difficult to swallow as well. The reference to the Attorney-General's alleged failure to explain his actions seems to be quite extraordinary. As I said, I am not here to defend Senator Gareth Evans. I feel he is big enough and probably ugly enough to take care of himself. However, I would say that far from failing to explain his actions he seems to us to have overreacted and to have allowed his own statements and actions in this matter to bring it to a degree of importance which it certainly does not deserve. The Attorney tabled a bundle of 77 pages of documents yesterday. An inordinate amount of Question Time during this sitting has been taken up with repetitious and, I suggest, to the public, boring explanations of this not very interesting matter. To that extent, the Opposition is directly to blame. It has laboured mightily and brought forward a mouse. It is time that that tiny corpse was decently buried. I turn to the third part of the matter of public importance, the Attorney- General's alleged reluctance to admit the error of his ways. This is a very broad statement, that the Attorney-General is in error in his ways and that he has committed error in some respect. It relates, of course, directly to the justification for the Attorney doing what he did; that is, taking photographs to satisfy himself and the Government of the actual extent of damage to South West Tasmania by the preliminary works for the Gordon below Franklin Dam now being carried out by the Tasmanian Government. He did this through the use of a Royal Australian Air Force photographic survey operation. He has said-and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), as we understand it, has said-that this was wrong and ought not to have been done. I concede to an extent that due to the circumstances of the extreme division of opinion, especially in Tasmania, about the Gordon below Franklin Dam, it was unfortunate that that should have been done. But I believe in the principle I stated earlier. The more important principle is that one of our defence aircraft ought to be able to fly freely over any part of Australia without any kind of criticism. I suggest that we cannot allow ourselves to obscure that principle, in the interests of whatever might happen in future. At some future time-who knows-any idiotic government might, by some aberration of the electoral processes, come to power in one State in this country. We do not know whether that might happen. How far would that government be allowed to go? Would there be any feeling that it should be immune from any kind of interest, activity or investigation from any other part of Australia? Was that the purpose of the founding of this great Commonwealth? I suggest not. I return directly to the Minister's justification because that is the last and, I think, the most important part of Senator Durack's proposal. He referred to the error of the Attorney-General's ways. It is a fact that most Australians- some 55 per cent-do not want the Gordon below Franklin Dam. I believe that relates directly to the fact that the Liberal-National Party Coalition now sits on the Opposition benches and the Australian Labor Party sits on the Government benches. The Government-I applaud it for this-is properly and promptly carrying out the undertaking it made to the electorate, the majority of which, I repeat, does not want South West Tasmania vandalised. The Government is attempting to get ahead as fast as it can to correct the situation and do what it said it would do during the election campaign. This issue, as we know from the wide interest that it has awoken in the community, was one of the more important elements in the election of the Government. It is very sad and directly relevant to this debate that massive destruction is now going on within the World Heritage area. This is not merely speculation on my part; it is the case as told by an authority on South West Tasmania who has just returned from the area. Senator Peter Baume —A RAAF pilot? Senator MASON —I refer to Mr Peter Waterman, a renowned environmental scientist. Indeed, Senator Baume, he was appointed by the previous Government-your Government-to head the South West Tasmania Resources Survey, the only total inventory ever made of the wealth of natural, scientific and biological resources of that magnificent area. I am sure that the honourable senator will agree that Mr Waterman is an observer of some consequence. Mr Waterman has observed first-hand the moving in by the Hydro-Electric Commission of heavy earthmoving and grading equipment. This is speeding up the physical damage in the area, particularly the access roads. This is part of the Attorney-General's motivation. I cannot see that he has erred in that respect. While the physical destruction is serious enough, I must raise one other matter which is even more dangerous and worrying. The equipment that is being moved in has not been sterilised or washed in any way. One of the most insidious forms of destruction, often ignored when the sight of trees being hacked down is focused on, is the biological destruction caused by the intrusion of new diseases. Honourable senators should take note of this point. This biological destruction, which is savage, long-term and completely pervasive, has actually begun in South West Tasmania. Mr Waterman, on the best authority, says that a tree root-rot disease known as phytophthora cinnamomi has already been isolated within the World Heritage area. I repeat that its effects are already evident in plant life around the dam site and can be expected to spread. South West Tasmania could then become another New England plateau, a place of dead trees. Senator Walters —That was carried in by the demonstrators. Senator MASON —If Senator Walters wants her State destroyed to that extent, she is going the right way about it. I am deeply disappointed-- Senator Chipp —I think it should be on the record that Senator Walters said the disease was carried in by the demonstrators. Senator MASON —I suggest that Senator Walters might like to give more thought to her statement that it was carried in by the demonstrators. The evidence that has been given by Mr Waterman is that it was definitely carried in by the heavy machinery. There is evidence to that effect. Yesterday I wrote to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) urging the Government to pass the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill as soon as possible-in fact, by today if possible-because of the urgency of this new problem. I am deeply disappointed that the House of Representatives has adjourned without doing so. These facts are vital because this situation-as well as, I stress the provocative and confrontationist nature of the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Gray-is the context in which overflights and photographic evidence were needed. I believe that although it was, perhaps, unfortunate that the Minister used military aircraft he was perfectly justified in seeking to obtain evidence through their use. Finally, another issue which has emerged in this matter only today is whether the photographs taken by the RAAF aircraft should be used in evidence. One presumes that if they are not used some other kind of aircraft will be used to take photographs. One set of photographs will not differ significantly from others. The net result-the only difference-will be that another aircraft will have to be sent because of all of this nonsense. The Australian taxpayer will have to foot the bill and will be worse off to that extent. If the Opposition believes that that is a desirable consummation it should think again. The Government ought to call to mind that it is a government, and not a pack of children to be panicked as it has been over this tiny issue. It has many tasks of great importance and of great urgency to carry out in this country. The Attorney-General ought to address himself to the details of the revision of the Freedom of Information Act and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act, which he has already said he will do, rather than allow himself to be diverted week after week, day after day, by this pathetic political drum up. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.47) —The Senate is debating the following matter of public importance: The total ineptitude of the Attorney-General in the Tasmanian spy planes fiasco , his failure to explain his actions in any credible sense and his utmost reluctance to admit the error of his ways. This is not a debate about South West Tasmania; it is a debate which distinguishes between ends and means. Senator Mason either has not understood again or has chosen to present an argument about ends when the debate is about the process that has gone on and about how wrong this process has been. Senator Mason reminds me of that speaker described by Winston Churchill, when he said: He can best be described as one of those orators who, before they get up, do not know what they are going to say; when they are speaking, do not know what they are saying; and, when they have sat down, do not know what they have said. The honourable senator apparently does not even comprehend now how foolish his argument has been. This is an argument about Australia, the constitutional relationship between the Commonwealth and the States, and proper dealings between governments. Senator Gareth Evans-or 'I the Attorney-General' as he referred to himself-acknowledged that he had been foolish. He acknowledged political unwisdom. He acknowledged a lack of 'eptitude'-that was his word-but he said: 'I do not need more criticism in this place'. How dare he say that! He may now be a member of the Executive Government; he may be a summiteer; but Senator Evans is still a member of the Parliament and he is answerable in the Parliament for what he does as a Minister. This is the place in which he is brought to account. It is proper that he should be brought to account here, in spite of Senator Mason and the other Australian Democrats believing that it is not right to raise this matter for discussion. He is a member of the Parliament and is answerable here to the people. The expectations of Australians are that they will have good, efficient, effective government. But they expect a government that will show sensitivity to the Constitution, that will show sensitivity to the constitutional niceties and relationships which exist and that will show respect for the rights of Australian citizens as they are guaranteed under the Constitution and under arrangements. The Australian newspaper formed its view of the events that have taken place. On 21 April in its editorial it stated: . . . the decision he- That is, Senator Gareth Evans- and the Defence Minister, Mr Scholes, made to use RAAF aircraft to gather evidence against a sovereign state represent a dangerous constitutional precedent. Senator Mason —What is that article referring to-a sovereign State? Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Mason, having made a mess of his speech, cannot stop chattering away. The Australian newspaper stated further that Senator Evans , in attempting to excuse his actions, showed 'a remarkable incapacity to comprehend the potential constitutional damage and the very real political damage the affair has created'. That is what this is about. Another newspaper, the Age, made the comment: Using the air force earlier in the week was at the very least crass; at the worst, provocative and irresponsible. Mr Gray has every right to object. That is what this debate is about. It is not about whether a dam should be built . That issue will be determined properly through established process. It is about the failure to follow proper process that has been a feature of Senator Evans's very unfortunate actions in this place. The threat of the misuse of the defence forces is or should be of concern to everyone in the States. Senator Harradine —Particularly to civil libertarians. Senator PETER BAUME —Especially to civil libertarians; I am indebted to Senator Harradine. The misuse of the defence forces is the stuff of the coup d'etat; it is the stuff of revolution. We as parliamentarians have a responsibility to question and to bring to account anyone who at any time in any place uses improperly the defence forces of this country in a way in which they were not meant to be used. Tasmania, we know, objected to this misuse of the defence forces. Mr Gray said it was another covert use of the defence forces. The territories are concerned. I thought Mr Paul Everingham, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, expressed the whole problem very well. On the PM program of 11 April Mr Everingham put it in very reasonable terms when he said: This is a conflict, a dispute between Tasmania and the Commonwealth over what is a proposition that has been supported by the Tasmanian people, namely, to build a dam. On the other hand, the Federal Government has a mandate to stop that dam. It is one of the most highly emotional conflicts that has ever happened in Australian politics and to bring the defence forces into it is an act of almost incredible obtuseness. That is what we are objecting to. We are objecting to the action of the Attorney -General using the defence forces. The question to be resolved can be resolved. The question of the Franklin Dam can be resolved by established civil process. I say to Senator Mason: If it is necessary to obtain aerial photographic evidence, obtain it, but do it in an appropriate way; do not misuse the defence forces of this country. I am surprised that the Australian Democrats cannot grasp that fact. There is no objection to the gathering of evidence for any proper Commonwealth purpose provided that it is done by proper Commonwealth means and using proper Commonwealth power. The argument here is with the improper, inappropriate use of Commonwealth power by someone who is already, obviously, an accident-prone Attorney-General. The use of the defence forces in this case was wrong. It was wrong and it has been recognised as being wrong. The Attorney-General, Senator Evans, requested a flight that should never have been sought. He pressed that request when he should never have pressed it. He was slow in providing the written request. In fact, the written request from the Attorney-General did not arrive before the flight was made, so the documentation was inadequate. The flights represented a breach of proper procedure. They were a breach of proper practice. They were a breach of the proper means of dealing between the pieces that make up our Commonwealth, between the governments of the Commonwealth and the States. It is important in a federation that there be trust and fair dealing between governments; that there be rules which are understood and which are followed. The action of the Labor Government in authorising these spy flights has been a breach of trust. It has been a breach of fair dealing. It has been a breach of the existing rules and it deserves to be condemned on each of those grounds. The proposition I put to the Government is that the end being sought does not justify the means used to achieve it. The means used here were improper and inappropriate and in fact have been condemned widely. Let me ask members of the Senate on the Labor side, through you, Mr Deputy President, how they would feel about the inappropriate use of the defence forces in, say, a circumstance in which there was a need to break a strike. They would object to the inappropriate use of the defence forces, as everyone would object, and I cannot understand why they find it difficult on this occasion to recognise that the Attorney-General who sits in front of them has done no service to the country, no service to the Government and certainly no service to himself. In his apologia, Senator Gareth Evans seems not to have learned what the issues are . The Adelaide Advertiser tried to put the questions for him when it stated: It is a little disturbing that Senator Evans, despite his reprimand, seems still to have difficulty in understanding why the Mirage flight should not have been made. It also stated: Above all, the political sensitivity inevitably associated with the use of the RAAF for that purpose should have been readily apparent to a Federal Minister. The whole affair has been a fiasco. It has been rejected by the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke). Senator Evans has been rejected by his former colleague Mr Wriedt, in his comments about the whole matter. Senator Evans and his Government are now the butt of satire all around Australia. I refer honourable senators to the very good cartoon which appeared in today's Australian in which the streaker's defence was given its proper treatment. The answers given to questions today and yesterday have been inadequate. It has been a pathetic affair. Senator Evans aspires to be the first law officer of the Commonwealth and to earn respect in that position. So far what he has evoked in people is a sense of deja vu. Our minds go back to 1973. We have a clear memory of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation raid by Senator Murphy, the then Attorney-General. I remind honourable senators that that affair-and the problem Senator Murphy had following that-was one from which he never recovered. This episode has been a very unsavoury one. It has done no good to this Government. Senator Evans has let his Government down at its first test. We have seen the most powerful Government in Australia use its might incorrectly and improperly against the smallest State. It has used it covertly and it has sought to justify what it has done because it believes the end is appropriate. Australians are concerned with process. They are concerned with due process. They are concerned that the military should be under proper control of the civil authorities and that that control should follow the rules. That has not been the case throughout this spy plane affair. The questions which have been asked by Senator Durack and by my colleagues in the last two days have done a service to the people of Australia. They have brought to light documents and they have brought to light facts. I do not believe that the affair ends there. It has done Senator Evans no credit and I believe the matter of public importance is one which properly needed to be raised. Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2.15 p.m. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I table additional information received by Estimates Committee C after the rising of the Senate last year. I seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the reports of the following bodies be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for investigation and report as to the reasons for the delay in presentation or the reasons that they were qualified by the Auditor-General: Australian Egg Board 1981-82 Special Broadcasting Service 1981-82 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal 1981-82 National Library of Australia 1981-82 Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Ltd 1981-82 Australian War Memorial 1980-81 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 1981-82 High Court of Australia 1980-81 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 1981-82 Housing Loans Insurance Corporation 1982 Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation 1981-82 Australian Maritime College 1981 Australian Broadcasting Commission 1981-82 Health Insurance Commission 1981-82 Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and Commissioner for Superannuation 1980- 81 Australian Wheat Board The last mentioned has just been given yet again an extension of time for presenting a late report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Button) agreed to: That, in pursuance of section 13 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, the Senators chosen for each State shall be divided into two classes, as follows: (1) The name of the Senator first elected shall be placed first on the Senators ' Roll for each State and the name of the Senator next elected shall be placed next, and so on in rotation. (2) The Senators whose names are placed first, second, third, fourth and fifth on the Roll shall be Senators of the second class, that is, the long-term Senators, and Senators whose names are placed sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth on the Roll shall be Senators of the first class, that is, the short-term Senators. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Button) proposed: (1) Days and Hours of Meeting: That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and hours of meeting of the Senate shall be Tuesday at fifteen minutes to two p.m., Wednesdays at half-past eleven a.m., and Thursday at ten a.m. (2) Suspension of Sittings: That, unless otherwise ordered, on Wednesdays, the sittings of the Senate, or of a Committee of the Whole, shall be suspended from one p.m. till fifteen minutes past two p.m. and from half-past six p.m. till eight p.m. (3) Adjournment of the Senate: That, unless otherwise ordered, at seven p.m. on Tuesdays, half-past ten p.m. on Wednesdays and seven p.m. on Thursdays the President shall put the Question-That the Senate do now adjourn-which Question shall be open to debate; if the Senate be in Committee at that hour, the Chairman shall in like manner put the Question-That he do leave the Chair and report to the Senate; and upon such report being made the President shall forthwith put the Question-That the Senate do now adjourn-which Question shall be open to debate: Provided that if the Senate or the Committee be in Division at the time named, the President or the Chairman shall not put the Question referred to till the result of such Division has been declared; and if the business under discussion shall not have been disposed of at such adjournment it shall appear on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day. (4) Routine of Business: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and unless otherwise ordered, on Thursdays, the Senate shall proceed with its ordinary business in the following routine: 1. Petitions 2. Notices 3. Formal Motions 4. Postponement of Business 5. Motions and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper 6. At 12 o'clock midday, Questions 7. Further Motions and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. (5) Government and General Business-Precedence: That, on all sitting days of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business shall take precedence of General Business, except that General Business shall take precedence of Government Business on Thursdays, from a quarter-past two p.m. until the expiration of two and one half-hours or until there is no further debate; and that, unless otherwise ordered, General Business Orders of the Day shall take precedence of General Business Notices of Motion on alternate Thursdays. (6) Petitions-Procedure for Presentation: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the procedure for the presentation of Petitions be as follows: (1) A Senator wishing to present a petition shall lodge it with the Clerk. (2) The Clerk shall make an announcement in respect of petitions lodged with him, indicating in respect of each petition the Senator who presents it, the number of signatures, and the subject matter of the petition. (3) Every petition so presented shall be deemed to have been received by the Senate unless a motion, moved forthwith, that a particular petition be not received, be agreed to. (4) The terms of the petitions presented shall be printed in Hansard. (7) Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees-Reference of Annual Reports: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, all annual reports of Government departments and authorities, including statutory corporations, laid on the Table of the Senate, shall stand referred, without any Question being put, for consideration and, if necessary, for report thereon, to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees. (2) That the President shall transmit a copy of each report so tabled to the Committee which he deems appropriate. (3) That the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees may, at their discretion, pursue or not pursue inquiries into reports so received; but any action necessary, arising from a report of a Committee, shall be taken in the Senate on motion after notice. (8) Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees-Reference of Bills: That, after the Second Reading of a Bill (other than an Appropriation Bill, Supply Bill, or Bill imposing taxation), and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and without limiting the operation of Standing Orders 36AA and 196A, the following procedure shall apply- (1) A motion (of which notice need not be given) may be moved to refer the Bill to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee: Provided that if no such motion be moved, or if moved and negatived, the Senate shall forthwith resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for consideration of the Bill. (2) Upon motion to refer a Bill to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee, no debate thereon shall be allowed for more than one hour, and in speaking thereon no Senator shall exceed ten minutes. If the debate be not sooner concluded then forthwith upon the expiration of that time the President shall put any Questions on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair. (3) On reference of a Bill to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee, a day shall be fixed for the reporting of a Committee's proceedings to the Senate, by which day the final report of the Committee shall be brought up, unless further time be moved for and granted: Provided that the Senate may at any time prior to such day receive the final report of the Committee. (4) Upon a Bill being committed to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee pursuant to this Order, it shall be set down on the Notice Paper as an Order of the Day for further consideration following report from the Committee. (5) The procedure to be adopted by a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee shall, as far as possible, be the same as that in Committee of the Whole: Provided that a Committee may ask for explanations from the Minister in Charge of a Bill, or officers, relating to the clauses of the Bill. (6) A Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee shall have no power to make amendments to a Bill, but may recommend amendments or requests for amendments. No amendment or request for amendment may be proposed which would not be in order if proposed in a Committee of the Whole. (7) A report from a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee, relating to a Bill, shall be received by the Senate without debate and its consideration deferred until the reading of the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Bill, when the procedure, unless otherwise ordered, shall be as follows: (a) a motion may be proposed that the report be adopted; and such motion shall be open to debate; (b) on the motion for the adoption of the report, amendments may be proposed; (c) in these proceedings, the same right of speech and time limits shall apply as in debate in Committee of the Whole; (d) if amendments or requests for amendments be made, additional to any recommended by the report of a Standing Committee, the Chair shall propose a Question-That the Bill as reported (with or without amendments or requests for amendments), and as further amended, be agreed to; (e) a motion may be moved, by any Senator, that the Bill as reported from a Standing Committee be recommitted, in whole or in part, to the Standing Committee, or that the Bill as reported be committed, in whole or in part, to a Committee of the Whole; and (f) when the report from the Committee, or from a Committee of the Whole, is finally adopted, the Bill may be proceeded with in the usual way. (9) Consideration of Government Papers: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, on Tuesdays after Questions without Notice, and Wednesdays and Thursdays after Notices of Motion, Papers may be presented by Ministers. Upon the presentation of such Papers, a Senator may move, without notice, that the Senate take note of one, or several, of the Papers. Senators may not speak to any such motion for more than five minutes. Any debate pursuant to this Sessional Order shall be interrupted after the expiration of 30 minutes or until there is no further debate: Provided that, on Wednesdays, any debate pursuant to this Sessional Order shall be interrupted at 12 o'clock midday. Provided further that, at the conclusion of his or her speech, or, if the debate is interrupted pursuant to this Sessional Order, a Senator may move that the debate be resumed pursuant to Sessional Order on Thursdays at the time for consideration of General Business. At that time, further such motions may be moved with respect to any Government Paper tabled during the current sitting week and in relation to which no motion to take note has been moved. Debates on any such motion or motions shall take precedence of other General Business, but shall not continue beyond one hour. (2) Where debates on motions moved under the provisions of this Sessional Order are adjourned and are called on in the normal course of business, Senators who have spoken to the Questions under the provisions of this Sessional Order may speak again for the time allowed under Standing Order 407A. (10) Consideration of Committee Reports: (1) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, and unless otherwise ordered, where in any week there are Orders of the Day for the resumption of debate on motions for the consideration or adoption of reports of committees- (a) on Wednesdays after Questions without Notice, Orders of the Day relating to reports of committees presented to the Senate during that week shall be severally called on, in the order in which the respective reports were presented ; (b) if there were no committee reports presented during that week, or if debate on motions relating to such reports concludes before the expiration of one hour, Orders of the Day relating to committee reports presented prior to that week shall then be severally called on in an order which is the reverse of the order in which the respective reports were presented; (c) in any debate on such motions so called on, each Senator may speak for not more than 10 minutes; and (d) any debate pursuant to this Sessional Order shall be interrupted after the expiration of one hour. (2) Provided that, where debate on any motion debated under the provisions of this Sessional Order is adjourned or is interrupted under the provisions of this Sessional Order, Senators who have spoken to such motion under the provisions of this Sessional Order may speak again to the motion for the time allowed under Standing Order 407A, when the debate on the motion is again called on in the normal course of business. (11) Time Limits to Speeches-Proposed Amendment to Standing Order 407A: That the following proposed amendment to Standing Order 407A operate as a Sessional Order for a trial period: No Senator shall speak for more than thirty minutes in any debate in the Senate . Any Senator may move that the time limit of thirty minutes be extended for fifteen minutes; such motion shall forthwith be put without debate: Provided that, where a right of reply is allowed in any debate, a Senator speaking in reply shall speak for not more than thirty minutes. Provided further that, in debate on the first reading of a Bill which the Senate may not amend, no Senator shall speak for more than fifteen minutes. In Committee no Senator shall speak for more than fifteen minutes at any one time on any one Question: Provided that, where the speech of a Senator is interrupted by this provision, and no other Senator rises to speak, the Senator so interrupted may continue his speech for a further fifteen minutes but no longer continuously on any one Question. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I indicate to you, Mr President, and to the Senate that the Opposition is of the view that these sitting hours are not particularly satisfactory and in particular is concerned about the fact that both the House of Representatives and the Senate will be meeting on Wednesday mornings, thus removing the second free morning which has traditionally been part of the parliamentary week and which has permitted the meeting of the parties and the Cabinet or the shadow Cabinet, as the case may be. I acknowledge that, after discussions with the Government and with the Australian Democrats, there has been some concession with respect to the Senate alone; that is, to push the sitting hours on Wednesday back to 11.30 a.m. An hour of the hour and a half so lost has been made up by making minor adjustments elsewhere. The position was that overall the Government wished to pursue these hours. The Democrats, subject to the change that they were prepared to support, indicated they would support it for this session alone as a trial. On that basis and that basis only I propose to have this dealt with in a formal way. To avoid future misunderstandings with the Government I thought it desirable to put something as to our position on the Hansard record. I would also like to make a request of the Government. When we were in government and the now Government was in opposition I understand that in rearranging our sitting hours we paid heed to the request from at least some members of the then Opposition that the Tuesday and Wednesday mornings should remain available for the reason I indicated earlier, so that Caucus and the shadow Cabinet could meet. The change in the Senate hours will be of assistance to us, but since the House of Representatives will still be sitting at 10 a.m. it is not as helpful as it would be if both Houses were brought into line. So I request the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) to take up with the Government the possibility of making a similar adjustment to the sitting hours in the House of Representatives so that the parties will have the value of that additional time for the additional meetings of both parliamentary and party committees. I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that, whilst this is not a tied vote in the sense that in the past we voted in a free way, I accept the motion which is now moved. We can examine it again after the May sitting. The acceptance is subject to the request which I have just enunciated. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I thank you, Mr President, and the Government for this consideration. I direct the attention of the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Grimes) to paragraph (5): Government and General Business-Precedence. On the fourth line down it says: . . . from a quarter-past two p.m. until the expiration of two and one half- hours or until there is no further debate; . . . It seems to me that that does not clarify the length of debating time for private members' business. It says 'until the expiration of two and one half- hours or until there is no further debate', but it does not say 'whichever is the longer' or 'whichever is the sooner'. I think that should be clarified. Sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph (6) says: Every petition so presented shall be deemed to have been received by the Senate unless a motion, moved forthwith, that a particular petition be not received, be agreed to. My problem is: How can the Senate move forthwith not to receive a petition when we do not know the form of the petition until we see it in Hansard the next day? For example, the form which has been distributed around the chamber says: Petitions have been lodged for presentation by honourable senators as follows: By Senator Jones from 6 petitioners praying that funding to the performing arts be substantially increased. That is all we know about that petition, but when we see it recorded in Hansard next day we might take great exception to its wording. Unless an honourable senator moves forthwith not to receive the petition, we do not have an opportunity on the next day of sitting to persuade the Senate not to receive it. In my view, the words 'moved forthwith' ought not to be in that paragraph. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave -As to the first question, which relates to paragraph 5 of this motion, I would assume, and I think everyone would assume, that it means whichever is the sooner . I will give a guarantee that it means that and we will alter it if necessary, Senator. I have some difficulty with paragraph 6 because we passed it this morning. However,I will have that paragraph looked at. I think the best thing to do is to have the Standing Orders Committee look at it. The point the honourable senator makes is quite valid. It is obviously something that has slipped through honourable senators on both sides. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Walsh for Senator Button) proposed: That, in accordance with Standing Order 36AB, six Estimates Committees be appointed, to be known as Estimates Committees A, B, C, D, E and F; and that, unless otherwise ordered, the Committees consider the Proposed Expenditure in relation to Departments, as follows: Estimates Committee A Parliament Industry and Commerce Prime Minister and Cabinet Employment and Industrial Relations Communications Estimates Committee B Social Security Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Housing and Construction Health Estimates Committee C Resources and Energy Trade Treasury Primary Industry Finance Estimates Committee D Education and Youth Affairs Sport, Recreation and Tourism Science and Technology Home Affairs and Environment Aboriginal Affairs Estimates Committee E Attorney-General's Special Minister of State Foreign Affairs Defence Defence Support Estimates Committee F Veterans' Affairs Transport Aviation Administrative Services Territories and Local Government. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I should like to make a brief statement on this matter in order to explain the Opposition position. I have no objection to this motion being dealt with as a formal motion . Mr President, all honourable senators will recall that we experimented with eight Estimates committees. All honourable senators will be aware that a number of honourable senators from all parts of the chamber have done a lot of work on the committee system. A paper is available which has been prepared by honourable senators from all parts of the chamber. The Opposition's view on this motion is that we should accept it as a trial and return to six Estimates committees for the next session. We should consider the matter in the context of the broad considerations of the Senate committee system as outlined in the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Walsh for Senator Button) proposed: (1) That the Committee known as the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, constituted by resolution of the Senate on 25 May 1982, be re-constituted , under the same terms, and with the same functions and powers. (2) That the Committee have power to consider Minutes of the Evidence and Records of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills appointed in the previous Parliament. (3) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I thank the Senate. I will support this motion, along with my colleagues. I just flag a point for honourable senators to contemplate. It is assumed automatically, as I understand it, that with a committee such as the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, the chairman must be a member of the Government party. I believe that that is wrong. I believe that this chamber is entirely separate from the Government and that it should be immaterial which party is in government in determining who should be the chairman of this Committee. I should like to see honourable senators contemplate an idea that the Standing Orders be changed so that the Committee itself, once constituted and once having met, will then determine its own chairman. I know that that might be a pious hope but I believe that in some instances it could well act for the better service of the Senate and the Parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the establishment of a committee. I will outline the position very briefly. The motion is to re-establish the old Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations as a select committee to finish a report which was due to have been completed in February. The report has been drafted and the former members of the Committee have been involved in its preparation. The report covers about two years work. It has involved the Senate in a quite considerable amount of expenditure for the engagement of consultants. The work has been completed. The people who have been involved in it are the members of the former committee. The simplest way to complete it, by the end of next month I hope, is for the old committee to be reconstituted as a select committee, leaving the new committee, that is the new Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, to get on with the new tasks or the other partly completed tasks of the former committee. As I understand it, there have been discussions on this matter and without objection, there is a motion which I would like to move which will enable that to happen. The motion is simply seeking the reconstitution of the former committee for the purpose of completing one almost completed report, a report which was in a draft form and is the result of some two years work. Accordingly, I move: (1) That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report to the Senate on a matter which had been considered by the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations during the previous Parliament, and had reached the draft report stage, namely: An economic survey of the larger statutory authorities, measuring the real rates of return achieved as well as examining their financing methods and the macro-economics of those arrangements, and to make recommendations regarding the findings of that analysis. (2) That the Committee consists of Senators Childs, Coates, Lewis, Peter Rae, Walsh and Withers. (3) That Senator Rae be Chairman of the Committee. (4) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (5) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy- Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (6) That the presence of three members of the Committee shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Committee for the exercise of its powers. (7) That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to move from place to place. (8) That the Committee report on Tuesday of the last sitting week of the Autumn Session of the 1983 Parliament. (9) That the Senate authorise the publication of all documents which may be laid before the Select Committee and of all evidence which may be given before it, except such particular documents or evidence as the Committee determines should not be published. (10) That for the purpose of its inquiry the Committee have the power to consider relevant Minutes of Evidence and records of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. (11) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. The motion has been drafted on advice from both the Committee Secretariat and the Clerks and I understand that it is in the normal form for the establishment of the select committee for the purpose that I have outlined. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: (1) That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the succeeding provisions of his resolution having effect. (2) That the following Bills be restored to the Notice Paper and that consideration of each of the Bills be resumed at the stage reached in the last Session of the Parliament: Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1981; Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1981; Sales Tax Assessment (Rebate for Transport Costs) Bill 1981; Liquor Advertising Tax Assessment Bill 1981; Liquor Education Fund Bill 1981; Rainforest Preservation Agreements Bill 1982; Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1982; Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1982; Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill 1982; and Banks and Financial Corporations (Overdraft and Loan Charges) Bill 1982. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: 1. That a Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances be appointed. 2. That a House Committee be appointed to consist of the President and Senators Coleman, Jones, Lajovic, Martin, Robertson and Withers. The PRESIDENT —Order! I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) and the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) nominating senators to be members of the Standing Commitee on Regulations and Ordinances and the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills as follows: Regulations and Ordinances Senators Sir John Carrick, Coates, Cook, Durack, Lewis, Richardson and Tate Scrutiny of Bills Senators Bolkus, Crowley, Durack, Haines, Missen and Tate Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave- proposed: That the senators indicated, having been duly nominated in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 36A and the resolution of the Senate agreed to this day, be appointed members of the Regulations and Ordinances and Scrutiny of Bills committees in accordance with the lists circulated to honourable senators. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.38) —I speak briefly to the motion. In discussion with the Whips it was pointed out that by some arithmetic calculation the Australian Democrats, because of our numbers, should serve on 8.5 committees. We nominated for membership on that basis. I was very keen to do my share of the work and I nominated for the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. The two Whips met and passionately said that they did not want me on it. It is with great reluctance that I accede to their request. I understand that by an arrangement of many years standing the committee has only six members. So I reluctantly withdraw my nomination and look forward perhaps to serving on another committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: 1. That the Senate House Committee inquire into matters raised following the publication of the Committee's report on the organisation, operation, function and financial administration by the Joint House Department; 2. That for the purpose of its inquiry the Committee operate under the same terms and with the same powers as provided by the resolution of the Senate dated 22 September 1982; 3. For the purpose of its inquiry the Committee have powers to consider the minutes of the evidence and records of the House Committee's inquiries into this matter during the previous Parliament; and 4. The foregoing provisions of this resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Archer be granted leave of absence for one month on account of ill health. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(2.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Before seeking leave to incorporate into Hansard the second reading speech I would like to outline the procedures that the Government hopes to adopt, for the benefit of those who do not already know them. It is proposed by the Government that the second reading debate on the Loan Bill be adjourned to a later hour of the day and that Appropriation Bill (No. 3) then be taken to the second reading stage and adjourned in the same manner. Notice of two amendments has been given to Appropriation Bill (No. 4), one from the Australian Democrats, which the Government is quite happy to accept, and one from the Opposition which the Government will, of course, not accept for reasons that I will explain later. If it is agreed to adjourn Appropriation Bill (No. 3), it is proposed that Appropriation Bill (No. 4) be introduced, that the second reading speech be incorporated and that a cognate debate then take place on Appropriation Bill (No . 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4). I trust that that procedure will be acceptable to the Senate. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the second reading speech on the Loan Bill. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill seeks supplementation of the provision made in the Loan Act (No. 2) 1982 for financing 1982-83 expenditures to the extent that such expenditures as are appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) are likely to exceed the moneys legally available to that fund. The Senate will be aware that expenditures from the CRF in any financial year may not exceed the moneys available to it. While there is standing authority to meet certain expenditures from Loan Fund, such as payments to or for the States for capital assistance and roads grants, successive governments have found it necessary to introduce legislation to authorise borrowings for and expenditure in respect of services for which the Parliament has appropriated moneys from the CRF. The simplest and traditional means of seeking such authority has been a Loan Bill for the purpose of funding defence expenditure from Loan Fund. Such legislation does not therefore authorise expenditures in excess of those for which valid appropriations of the CRF already exist-other than expenditures in respect of the costs of the relevant borrowings; it merely provides for the funding of such expenditures from Loan Fund to the extent that moneys of the CRF are insufficient. The Parliament passed the Loan Act (No. 2) 1982 in the Budget sittings authorising the charging of defence expenditure up to $1500 million to the Loan Fund. In introducing the legislation into the Senate in October last year, the former Minister for Finance indicated that prospective expenditures looked like exceeding the budget by some $750 million. Since that time revised estimates of receipts and outlays have indicated a prospective deficit of the order of $4.5 billion, nearly $3 billion in excess of the budgeted deficit of $1.7 billion and substantially higher than that in prospect in October 1982. These revisions to the Estimates reflect of course on the Government's funding arrangements and it has become necessary to seek supplementation of the authority under the Loan Act (No. 2) 1982 to charge CRF expenditures to Loan Fund. To achieve this purpose the Bill proposes: First, that the authority under the Loan Act (No. 2) 1982 to charge defence expenditures to Loan Fund be increased by $1200 million; and Secondly, as defence expenditures may not be charged to Loan Fund retrospectively, that authority be provided to reimburse CRF from Loan Fund in respect of other expenditures up to the limit of the Commonwealth's Loan Council borrowing program. I consider these additional authorisations provide an adequate margin to enable the Government to meet the prospective deficit in the CRF. However, the margin sought is contingent on the urgent passage of the Bill since, as I have previously stated, defence expenditure cannot be charged retrospectively to Loan Fund. Finally I would re-emphasise that this measure does not of itself authorise additional expenditures over and above what the Parliament has already approved: it merely provides the mechanisms for the financing of such expenditures. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(2.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- I present Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1982-83 which, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1982-83 which I shall present shortly, comprises certain urgent appropriation measures which cannot reasonably await the passage of the Additional Estimates in the main autumn sittings. The need for these measures arises out of abnormally large calls on the contingency provisions-the advances to the Minister for Finance-contained in the Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) 1982-83. The Government was advised immediately on coming to office that, on the basis of information then available, urgent expenditures not foreseen at the time of the Budget, could be expected to exceed the amounts available in the advances by early May with further substantial calls on them by the end of that month; this initial expectation has been reinforced by subsequent monitoring of the situation. There is an urgent need to seek interim appropriation measures before the passage of the additional Estimates in the usual way in the main Autumn sittings . The additional amounts sought in these interim appropriations total $407.3m, $ 211.3m in Appropriation Bill No. 3 and $196.0m in Appropriation Bill No. 4. The principal factors underlying the abnormally large calls on the contingency provisions include post-Budget initiatives of the previous Government arising, inter alia, out of a fall in economic activity; the costs of the general election; drought and other natural disaster relief and associated costs; and higher than expected cost increases in some areas such as electricity charges. While the additional appropriations sought in this Bill, and those that will be the subject of the normal additional estimates in the main sittings, have been partly offset by savings in appropriations made by the Appropriation Acts Nos (1 and 2) 1982-83, they nevertheless reflect the more general pressures that have led to the substantial blow-out in the Budget deficit. A statement of such savings will, as is usual, be provided to the Senate at the time of the Additional Estimates. In seeking these interim appropriations the Government has had uppermost in mind two important matters of parliamentary principle: Firstly, the right of the Parliament to appropriate public moneys for specific purposes subject to accepted principles relating to the contingency provisions under the Advances to the Minister for Finance; second, the need to minimise the effects of not being able to avail ourselves of the normal processes for the scrutiny of estimates of expenditure. The provisions sought in the Bills have therefore been carefully chosen with a view to minimising the amount of supplementation for the contingency advances while avoiding matters which the Parliament might reasonably expect to scrutinise more closely. The major considerations in their selection have been that, with the exception of some bushfire relief payments recently agreed between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of Victoria and South Australia-provision for which has been included in the Appropriation Bill No. 4-they do not involve initiatives of the new Government; they are non-contentious; the expenditures are urgent and would normally be appropriate for the issue of funds from the Advance to the Minister for Finance; and the amounts, or significant proportions of them, would but for the specific appropriations involve substantial demands on the advances before the end of May. No specific provisions have been included for departmental salaries notwithstanding that, as a result of post-Budget decisions of the previous Government to substantially increase staff ceilings in the Social Security Department, the Taxation Office, and other areas, there could be significant calls on the advance contained in Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1982-83 before the passage of the Additional Estimates. Of the additional $211.3m sought in this Bill, $50m is for supplementation of the Advance to the Minister for Finance contained in Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1982-83, reflecting estimates of urgent funds requirements before the end of May -by which time it is hoped the Additional Estimates will have been passed- together with a margin for further urgent and unforeseen requirements. All the prospective calls on the advance were, of course, unforeseen at the time the previous Government brought down its Budget. The earlier the passage of the Additional Estimates, the lesser the likely calls on the Advance. However it is important that the supplementary provision is adequate to meet contingencies. The specific appropriations include amounts for legal aid resulting from increased costs and unforeseen costs associated with the newly operating Victorian Legal Aid Commission; higher costs, especially electricity charges, associated with certain defence operations; higher rates of eligibility and increased average benefits under student assistance programs; additional places made available under the special apprentice training schemes; emergency relief for Lebanon; payments to meet higher operational losses sustained by the Australian National Railways Commission reflecting reduced cash flow as a result of the drought affected harvest and the economic downturn; and the costs of the general election itself. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(2.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave for the second reading speech to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- I present Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1982-83 in which appropriations totalling $196m are sought for payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory in respect of natural disaster relief and restoration pursuant to long-standing arrangements, and for payments to the Victorian and South Australian governments for general purpose assistance in respect of the recent tragic bushfires. As in the case of certain urgent appropriation measures I have just outlined with reference to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1982-83, these provisions are of such urgency that they cannot reasonably await the passage of the Additional Estimates in the main autumn sittings. Payments in respect of the natural disaster relief and restoration item amounting to $34.8m have already been met from moneys available under the advance to the Minister for Finance. However, as the required total payments substantially exceed the amount provided under the advance, it is necessary either to seek supplementation of the advance for this and other prospective contingencies, or to seek specific appropriations for the bushfire and other natural disaster relief payments. It is clearly the more desirable course in these circumstances to seek appropriations for the specific purposes for which they are required. I am sure that it will be agreed that the provisions warrant wide support. I commend the Bill to the House. Senator WALSH —I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the Senate to have a general debate covering this Bill and Appropriation Bill (No.3) as they are associated measures. The PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed . Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(2.47) —As we proceed to the cognate debate of the two Bills, I want to make it clear that the Opposition does not intend to delay the passage of Appropriation Bills No. 3 and No. 4. We are aware of the reasons for the introduction of these Bills and the need for their passage. As I understand it, an amendment is to be moved by the Australian Democrats which seeks explanation of these Bills, if required, at an Estimates committee. I note that the Government has said that it does not oppose that amendment which will be moved in the appropriate way. From the Opposition's point of view it seems timely to make the point that there has not been an opportunity for discussion of many of the matters that would require parliamentary discussion at the first stage of the parliamentary sitting of a new government. Comments were made this morning by Senator Grimes and other honourable senators that we had not raised matters of national importance with regard to the economy or decisions that were taken last week at the National Economic Summit Conference. It is the appropriate time here to suggest that that opportunity has not been given to the Australian Parliament. The one-day sitting was originally designed for the introduction of these essential Appropriation Bills. The Opposition wishes to make the point that while it supports the passage of the Bills it finds it necessary to condemn the failure of the Government to provide an adequate and timely opportunity for the Senate to debate national issues relating to the National Economic Summit Conference which was held in Canberra last week. It is in those words that I will move an amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time. From the point of view of timing it seems to me to be appropriate that many of the matters that were discussed at the National Economic Summit Conference could have been and should have been discussed in parliamentary session because there are now the questions of the outcome of the Summit Conference, the communique that was issued from that meeting and what seems to be daily headlines that there has been some breakdown of the communique and the prices and incomes policy which had been endorsed at the Summit Conference. I would have thought that headlines that indicate, day after day, that the Summit wages pact has cracked or that there are obstacles to restraint, along with statements made by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions with regard to his understanding of what are the proper claims of unions under the accords and what seem to be other understandings of the same things, should have been discussed in parliamentary session so that if we were to be addressing some fact that there was an accord or that there was to be consensus about certain matters we would at least understand what was involved. It seems that the statements by the President of the ACTU this week that the promises of restraint by the unions under the prices and incomes accord would break down if the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission awarded less than full indexation under a new centralised system should be adequately discussed in the Parliament. A full understanding of what is involved in that accord should be developed. I think it was further reported this week in interviews and discussions by the President of the ACTU that sectional wage increases would be a fact of life under a centralised wage fixing system. That comment was made despite the ACTU's commitment in the Summit to suppress sectional claims in a return to a centralised wage-fixing system. Sectional interests form part of the communique. There is the rider to that sectional interest claim that makes exceptions of special circumstances that are proved before a wage fixing authority. If we were to talk about special circumstances and exemptions from what had been given to be an understanding that sectional claims were to be suppressed, then I think it would be appropriate that this should be developed and that under discussion we would have some precision as to what is meant by the suppression of sectional claims and which sectional claims could be regarded as having special circumstances surrounding them. The President of the ACTU and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) were both critical of the building unions' campaign several days ago. Yet in the intervening period we have now had other statements from the President of the ACTU. I think I would like to hear what the Prime Minister would say about matters such as sectional interests and the central wage fixing authority's responsibility to induce this compact and this consensus which have been spoken about so freely. I think we would also like to know what would be the Government's approach to the Arbitration Commission at the time that submissions were being made for its approval. These are the matters that we think should have had a great deal of parliamentary clarification and discussion. In talking about the particular unions which are causing this confusion and distress with regard to the consensus, it seems to me strange that the Prime Minister can make statements that the housing industry will be used for the recovery of our economy when, indeed, the building unions at present are in a state of industrial chaos. I think this certainly warrants the headlines of a breakdown in the Summit Conference accord and the prices and incomes agreement between the unions and the Government. These are the matters that I would have liked to have had some time to discuss. I know there are other matters which my colleagues would like to raise as this is the first sitting of the Parliament in the period of the new Government. At this time I confine myself to those introductory remarks on these Appropriation Bills and give the assurance that the Opposition does not wish to impede their passage. I have had explanations from officers of the Department of Finance with regard to the expenditure. I am aware of the practice and procedure with regard to the Loan Bill. For that reason and on behalf of the Opposition I wish the Bills a speedy passage today. I move: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate, whilst supporting the passage of this Bill, condemns the failure of the Government to provide an adequate and timely opportunity for the Senate to debate national issues related to the National Economic Summit Conference held in Canberra last week'. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(2.54) —I think we have seen today why it is that the remnants of this once noble political party, the Liberal Party, have been quite properly placed on the Opposition benches by the electorate. Whilst there was a time in its early ethos when the Liberal Party had something to contribute to the political culture of this nation, it is now quite clear why it will be consigned to the scrap heap of history. We have heard nothing today which gives any indication of an alternative vision, a goal for Australia, which the Liberal Party might propound to the Australian people or any indication of how it may wish to achieve that goal. The Governor-General said in this very chamber yesterday: There can be no doubt that the gravity of Australia's present crisis imposes on this Parliament a burden and a responsibility as challenging as that faced by any of its predecessors since Federation. Whilst the Governor-General, the Queen's representative, outlined in this chamber yesterday a most comprehensive response and the taking-up of that challenge by the Australian Labor Party, we on this side of the chamber have been astonished over the last two days to find nothing emanating from the Opposition benches as to the Opposition's response to this great challenge. No hint, no glimpse of an alternative vision, has been offered by the Opposition parties. Indeed, on this first working day of the Parliament we have been rather obsessed with an issue to do with the propriety of using the Government's own aircraft to gather evidence for a case before the high Court. It is not surprising that the Liberal Party is so bereft of ideas to place before the Australian people. After all, it ruthlessly conquered the political process in 1975 by degrading all the conventions of parliamentary democracy. It is ironic and fitting that its members now sit on the Opposition benches. It spawned the recent election, which brought about its defeat, by constitutional impropriety, by the former Prime Minister-let us not forget this-going to the Governor-General and seeking an election, misleading and deceiving the Governor- General as to the purpose of the election, saying: 'I need an election in order to get sales tax Bills passed because the Senate has refused to pass them'. Indeed, within a few days of having secured the election the Prime Minister said : 'Well really, that was only a sort of technicality; it was needed only in order to pull the wool over Sir Ninian Stephen's eyes'. That is the sort of political, constitutional impropriety which spawned the election which now sees the Liberal Party on the Opposition benches. Let us not forget another aspect of that calling of the election. It was so early, so improper, so untimely in its calling that the electoral rolls were closed in a way which disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of our fellow Australians, particularly the young who have borne the most dramatic impact of the lack of policies and lack of vision of the previous Government and, of course, many Australians who took up their citizenship in this country and wanted to participate for the first time by voting in that parliamentary election. Once again the personality, the very character of the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, came through in his calling of that early, untimely election in such a way as to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of our fellow Australians. Of course, there is one good effect of that early, untimely calling of the election; namely, that there is a strong sentiment within the Australian community in favour of constitutional reform, in favour of fixed term parliaments in order that a parliament may see through the business which is committed to it by the Australian people in any one election and so that we do not have the cynical opportunism which has characterised Australian political life so much in the last seven years. My real complaint and the real point I am making is that nowhere in these early days of the meeting of this Parliament have we heard anything from the Opposition benches of the Opposition's vision for Australia. But, as I have said , perhaps it is not surprising that the cupboard is bare. Senator Peter Rae —We have not heard anything from the Governor-General's Speech either about the vision for Australia. Senator TATE —The Governor-General, on behalf of the Government, put forward a very comprehensive and detailed program to realise our vision for Australia, a vision of reconciliation and reconstruction which was endorsed overwhelmingly by the mass of the Australian people. Let honourable senators not forget that. Only in the dying hours of this afternoon's sitting did a senior Minister in the former Government get up and talk about a substantive issue, namely, the holding of the National Economic Summit Conference. The only point that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle seemed to wish to make was that further parliamentary discussion and elaboration of those proceedings would be appropriate. With that I agree. Indeed, that was the understanding of those who participated in that Conference. In the second last paragraph of the communique agreed to by that Conference it is stated: Participants express their satisfaction at the degree to which these objectives have been met. The participants express the hope that this is the beginning of consensus, not the end. They understand the enourmous amount of detailed work that still remains to be done but express the hope that this work will be concluded as satisfactorily as this week's deliberations and with equal despatch . Indeed, that is the hope of those on this side of the chamber. The electorate must be thoroughly bemused at the sight of the Opposition rendered so irrelevant so quickly to the processes of public policy-making in this community. The Opposition treated with derision and scorn the whole concept of the calling of the National Economic Summit. It stood by while a better understanding, a more soundly based foundation for our economic and social recovery, was forged. Senator Martin —Until we found out that you broke your promises. Senator TATE —There are interjections from the other side. The Sydney Morning Herald did not speak of the National Economic Summit Conference in the carping, strident, derisive tones of the Opposition. It is not a radical newspaper and it said that the Conference: . . . represents the most daring, innovative, exciting experiment in Australia's political process and economic management since the War. I presume that it was referring to World War II. It continued: If it succeeds, it will lay the ground for a period of relative political harmony, and of progress in solving the economic problems which bedevil us. Senator Peter Rae —And if it fails? Senator TATE —If it fails? But it did not fail. It has been an outstanding success. That has been acknowledged by every mature political commentator-not by the puny, irrelevant voices of the Opposition but by every experienced observer of the Australian political scene-and certainly by the mass of the Australian electorate, as revealed in the opinion polls which have shown the Australian Labor Party increasing the satisfactory ratings which it had in the electorate on 5 March. Now we find that the Liberal Party had nothing to offer whilst the great forces which control and determine the trading and commercial life of our nation-the representatives of capital and labour-have come together with government and achieved such remarkable consensus, a consensus which will help modify the struggle between capital and labour for their respective shares of restored growth in the economy. They have modified their claims in recognition of their common interests and those of the broader community. Mr Deputy President, the Whips have asked us to be short in our remarks but I had hoped to comment on some of the issues that were raised during the last day or two in relation to South West Tasmania. With the indulgence of the Senate I will just make two or three short points. The Hawke Labor Government has been pursuing in this instance in a concrete, definite way, the theme of reconciliation which characterised its whole appeal to the Australian electorate on 5 March. I need only to remind all those on the other side who have spoken on the matter that, as I am sure the Australian electors remember, on the night of the election victory-indeed, at the very moment of claiming that victory-the Prime Minister elect, Mr Hawke, offered to the Tasmanian people his firm assurance that nothing would be done in relation to Tasmania which would be in any sense discriminatory or which would have any deleterious impact on the community of Tasmanians who voted against the Australian Labor Party in that Federal election. That note of reconciliation has permeated all the correspondence and all the attempted negotiations with the Premier since that date. Reconciliation does not mean a complete submerging or obliterating of claims, but it does mean recognising facts, including new facts. A new fact which has emerged over the last month, of course, is the election of the Australian Labor Party to government in this country. As the Governor-General himself noted in his Speech, there is a very clear mandate in regard to this matter. Mr Gray chooses to ignore that new fact. But, more importantly, as I have said, reconciliation is achieved not by giving up one's concerns but by recognising a larger common objective. Indeed, I believe this is what was offered by Mr Hawke in his recognition that the common objective of Tasmanians and Australians relating to this issue is the provision of adequate energy supplies for Tasmania 's future and adequate employment opportunities for those who might have expected employment, whether they be Hydro-Electric Commission employees or independent contractors, on this project. Once that common objective was recognised, I believe there were grounds for reconciliation, negotiation and consultation but they were not taken up by the Premier. Indeed, the Premier threatened in various ways which one does not have time to detail. He even threatened to arrest Australian Federal Police should they enter that area. Finally, under the constraints of time in relation to this matter I would simply say that now that the matter is in the High Court one sees the true constitutional propriety of this Government. It is not this Government which will determine whether it is constitutionally proper to attempt to halt construction of the Franklin project. It is the bench of High Court justices who will interpret the Constitution and apply it to this situation. We stand ready to abide by the Court's decision. We are acting constitutionally in exactly the proper way, in the way in which one would expect, and in the way which will characterise the term of office of this Government. It is true that we are part of an indissoluble Federal Commonwealth and the federal nature of that union needs to be recognised. But I also say that it is indissoluble and any hysterical talk of secession ought not to be heard in this chamber. No doubt there will be an opportunity when Bills are introduced to elaborate more fully on these matters. But I would hope that in the month of May at least we might see a fuller expression if it is possible-if honourable senators opposite are not totally bereft of ideas-of the competing philosophy of the Opposition parties as we try to achieve the mandate given to us by the Governor- General yesterday, namely, to use this parliamentary forum to achieve some sort of reconciliation and growth within Australia which can provide a basis for our future prosperity. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.8) —I am grateful for the very limited opportunity that I have this afternoon to speak in support of the amendment moved by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. The amendment has been moved to draw attention to the fact that, whilst this new Government has seen fit to bring together the Parliament and the people who make it up, it has not seen fit to make any provision whatsoever for an opportunity to debate the matters which it thought were of such moment that it drew together the summiteers to Canberra for the whole of last week. Yet, even with the opportunity to have everybody in Canberra to discuss these matters of moment through the elected representatives, the Government has chosen to close down the Parliament and to prevent us from having the opportunity of debating these matters. So, I warmly support adding to the motion for the second reading the following words: but the Senate, whilst supporting the passage of this Bill, condemns the failure of the Government to provide an adequate and timely opportunity for the Senate to debate national issues related to the National Economic Summit Conference held in Canberra last week. I would like to refer to some of the issues. They include the failure of this Government in the sense that promise and performance are already the stigmas which attach to this new Government that has been in office for such a short time. It is already finding excuse after excuse for failing to do or failing to be able to promise to do any of the things which it said it would do at the time when it conned the people of Australia into voting for it. One of the massive confidence tricks of all time was the election campaign which was followed by the absolute confidence trick of all time-the Summit Conference. At that Conference big business was conned into joining in an agreement which had already been made between big government and big unions. The Government conned big business into joining them without regard to the interests of the rest of Australia which is the vast majority of Australian people who were excluded from the Conference and from the agreement, and whose interests are not protected in any way whatsoever. Let me refer to what the unions have been doing while this confidence trick has been taking place. Tasmania was held to ransom, as usual, by shipping unions which did not want to operate the ships. It did not suit them to let ships service Tasmania as they are supposed to do. The great conciliator, the man who we find is at the head of the confidence trick called the Labor Government, was doing nothing about getting the ships operating to Tasmania. Senator Tate —We will see how you do in Billy Snedden's seat. Senator PETER RAE —Senator Tate was not concerned about getting the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to do something to get those Australian National Line ships back to work. Those ships were banned by his mates in that union who spend more time shooting each other but who sometimes spend a bit of time on industrial disputation as well. Let me go on to talk about what the builders labourers have been doing. Twenty separate bans are operating and have been in operation for anything up to 12 months and they are still going on. The great conciliator, the man who is going to bring Australia together, has done not a thing about this matter. He has not even mentioned it. He has done nothing except bring our erstwhile refugee from Pentridge Gaol to sit in the Parliament. Senator Bolkus —Come on, that's crook. You know it. He got out rightfully. There is nothing extraordinary in that and you know it. Senator PETER RAE —It was extraordinary to have him sitting in our Parliament when he has not been elected any more than the other people who were sitting in this Parliament. Let me go on to refer to some other matters in the very limited time I have available to me because, by agreement, we are to speak for ten minutes only at a time when there are so many matters which need to be referred to. Twenty separate bans have been imposed on projects which would provide employment and generation of economic activity around Australia. What is happening in relation to all of these projects? Nothing is happening because of bans imposed by the Builders Labourers Federation. Let us have a look at the, I think, $150m project in the Hunter Valley which has been severely hit by unemployment and by the problems of the steel industry. What is happening in relation to that project? It is sitting there. The investment has been made; the trucks are there; and everybody is waiting for someone-perhaps the great conciliator-to sort out what will happen in relation to that project. What about the bans that have been imposed by the vehicle builders in the troubled vehicle industry? Why is not somebody doing something about lifting those bans? What about the Garden Island Dockyard stoppage? In a troubled industry which has an employment problem, the workers have gone on a sympathy strike causing the loss of 325 hours as a mark of respect for one of their former members. Senator Tate —What about the drought? Don't forget the drought. Senator PETER RAE —I have to concede that the honourable senator has me. The great conciliator came to terms with the Almighty and broke the drought. I could not do other than recognise that after the great conciliator took over the reins of Australia the rains did come. Let us go back to the real world. The meat workers in Queensland are happily imposing bans which are going on for week after week in an industry where real people are troubled about employment opportunities and about the drought to which Senator Tate has just referred. But they are being held back in their opportunities to be able to overcome the problems which have been created by the drought as a result of industrial bans about which the great conciliator, our new Prime Minister, does nothing. He does nothing while he struts around holding the greatest confidence trick Australia has yet witnessed-the Summit. Let me go on. I refer to the failure of the Government to enable many interested individuals and groups within the community to express a view and to be heard. Let us see who was at this great Summit. Unfortunately I have so much material which I would like to incorporate. If somebody would like to move that I incorporate it, I would be happy to. The government participants-big government-were 29, big business were 35 and big unions were 25. That is a total of 89 out 100 participants. That hardly reflects the real distribution of the balance of interests in this community. How were the millions of smaller people represented? They were represented by only one organisation, the Australian Council of Social Service. Where were the representatives of the millions of people who, as Senator Grimes would well know , have the real problems and who are really disadvantaged at the moment? Big unions are not suffering a real disadvantage; big business is not suffering a real disadvantage; and big government is just luxuriating itself. The people who came to this Summit were treated to white cars at their beck and call and to wining and dining in order to buy them. What a price for them to pay. It was beyond belief that those people were prepared to join in that communique for the sake of a couple of bottles of wine and rides in a couple of white cars. Out of the 100 people who were there, excluding observers, 89 of them clearly represented big business, big government and big unions. Of the others, there were five who questionably represented the smaller sections of business, three represented professional groups and only three out of 100 represented some of the other organisations of the community, which were not given the opportunity to participate. The invitations were so arranged that the interests were those only of big business, big government and big unions. Central wage fixing, with all of its implications, did not receive an opportunity for real consideration but was made part of the terms of the confidence trick which was put over Australians. There was no real effort to approach the question of real job creation. There was a failure to devise machinery for achieving restraint. There was a failure to give science and technology an appropriate priority. Mr Jones, the Minister for Science and Technology, made that so obvious in his very vocal complaints about the fact that the real sunrise area of Australian industry was excluded from consideration in this great Summit Conference. That gives some idea of the reality, of the genuine nature or otherwise of the approach to this whole thing. The failure to give appropriate priority and consideration to the tourism industry and its capacity for job creation, the failure to reach agreement or consensus on the importance of a return to more performance value-related wage rates for young Australians and to thereby increase their job opportunities, the failure to identify and reach agreement or consensus in relation to the actual methods for attaining national economic goals and the failure of the Government to place before the Summit proposals for the implementation of the election promises made by the Government, including tax cuts, are all matters in relation to which I suggest that not only the Parliament and the Summit but also the people of Australia were conned by the greatest confidence trick, by the great conciliator who failed dismally to get down to the sort of conciliation that this country really needs to overcome the sorts of problems that it is experiencing and to get back to work. I regret that today will not provide an opportunity to debate this matter further, but as soon as we are allowed to, as soon as this Government will give us the opportunity, we will debate this matter at length as well as put forward proposals as to how we believe we ought to see Australia go about overcoming the problems which it has. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.19) —It is my intention to move an additional amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1982-83 after this amendment has been dealt with. I also, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, intend to move an amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1982-83. I would therefore like to reserve my right to speak on the main question and address myself at this stage only to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's amendment, which she has technically moved on behalf of the Opposition. I am tempted, as I have been on listening to Senator Rae's speech, to indulge in an adult version of the Kindergarten of the Air. I would restrict my comments to say only that if the Liberal-National Party coalition Opposition is so concerned about debating some of the matters of national importance, which it says were raised at the National Economic Summit Conference, I wonder why it wasted something like two hours this morning debating whether a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft should or should not have flown over Australian territory. Perhaps it may well be important in the eyes of Opposition senators but one wonders, given the impassioned speech just issued to this chamber by Senator Rae , why the Opposition puts that at a higher priority than the National Summit. I certainly agree with Senator Rae that it fell short in a certain number of respects, not the least of which were that in this chamber not one representative of a women's group was there in a speaking capacity. Certainly there were one or two as observers, but to the best of my knowledge the only female presence on the floor was in the person of Senator Susan Ryan who is certainly capable but she was there in her capacity as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs rather than spokesperson for any particular women's groups. So the Liberal-National Party Opposition and the Democrats were not the only groups representing significant portions of Australian society which were not represented at that Summit. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's amendment does two things: It indicates that it supports the passage of the Bill-that is Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1982-83, and presumably also Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1982-83 and the Loan Bill 1983. It then goes on to indicate censure of the Government for not giving the Senate time to debate those issues of national importance which were raised at the Economic Summit just past. It is this reference of condemnation, this censure motion, which results in the Australian Democrats not supporting the Opposition amendment. Certainly we have some sympathy for the contents of the motion, but it has been our practice in the past not to support motions which censure the Government unless there is some absolutely reprehensible action behind it. As an example I refer to a censure motion that was moved by the then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Button, against the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Sir John Carrick, on 9 April 1981. At that time senators of the Australian Democrats opposed that censure motion, and we will oppose this one. This Parliament has sat for two days after a delay of five months, which was entirely due to the fact that the last Government's election whims caused the Parliament to be dissolved. It is simply not good enough then for that ex- government to come in here and complain that after two days debate has not been undertaken on matters of the economic direction this country is going to take in the next couple of years. That is hardly a reprehensible situation. I think even the Labor Government is entitled to something more than two days before it is censured from this side of the House. The Democrats would certainly like to see some debate on economic matters before the end of May particularly those raised at the Summit. I trust that the Labor Government will oblige us and the rest of the Opposition in that. For that reason it is not our intention to support Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1982- 83. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.25) —I shall not speak at great lenght but I think I should reply to some of the points which have been made, in particular, to the carping criticism of last week's Summit Conference from members of the Opposition. I suppose one could say that members of the Opposition are entitled to be petulant as a result of the Summit Conference because they were completely excluded, left way out in the cold, in isolation and were placed in the wilderness where, if today's performance is any indication, they are destined to remain for a very long time. It is really displaying too much chutzpah for them to move the amendment which they have. The amendment is plainly humbug for two reasons. Firstly, if the Opposition wanted an opportunity to debate economic matters it had an opportunity to raise a matter of public importance this morning. The time could have been devoted to a debate on economic matters. Instead honourable senators opposite decided to waste time on a tedious and trivial discussion about the recent activities of a couple of Royal Australian Air Force planes. I stress that this came from the same people who were silent when their Government used the Royal Australian Air Force for exactly the same reason-to photograph Fraser Island a few years ago. The people who engineered the situation of urgency under which these Bills must be passed now have the chutzpah, or cheek if Senator Haines prefers that word, to complain about the Bills being passed in haste. That brings me to the second reason why the Opposition's amendment is humbug. These Bills must be passed urgently for the simple reason that- Senator Peter Rae —We are not holding them up. Senator WALSH —The honourable senator is complaining about not having adequate opportunity for a debate. This sitting was called as a one-day sitting to pass urgent legislation. Two and a half months ago those who now sit opposite, with characteristically unbridled opportunism, decided to pull a premature election which they thought, mistakenly, they could win. As a result these Bills, which ought to have been introduced in the normal course of events in the Parliament at least one month ago, are now being debated. Because of the premature election that procedure could not be followed. It has become essential that these Bills be passed today. Originally that was intended to be done in a one-day sitting, but that was extended because the Opposition clearly wanted to discuss some other matters. It was extended to a two-day sitting. After wasting all morning debating a silly, trivial and tedious matter about an Australian aircraft flying over Australian territory, honourable senators opposite now have the audacity to complain that they do not have an opportunity in this short sitting of Parliament to have a proper debate on economic questions. It requires a good deal more than the ordinary amount of cheek for any member of the former Government to complain about anybody else's economic management. The former Government was elected 7 1/2 years ago on a promise to beat inflation , reduce taxes and provide jobs for all. Seven years later inflation, which, when it took over, was at 13 per cent and on the way down, stood at 11 per cent and going up; taxation stood at all time record levels; and in the seven years that it was in office unemployment trebled. The former Government went out of government in disgrace, with an unemployment level above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and inflation at almost double the OECD average. That was the end result of seven years of coalition government. In the second day of the parliamentary sitting of the new Government this discredited former regime has the audacity to suggest that the present Government should in some way be censured for the condition of the Australian economy. The speech that Senator Peter Rae gave was really unworthy of a senator of his calibre. He was annoyed apparently by Mr Gallagher's presence at the Summit. I am not certain whether he objected to Mr Gallagher being present or to the fact that some other people who could be classified in a similar way, at least in one respect-such as Harry Miller-were not invited. The Opposition claims that it wants a debate on economic questions, but insofar as the honourable senator touched on economic questions at all, he had nothing constructive to contribute to an economic debate. I have already indicated that the Government will not accept the official Opposition's absolutely unjustified amendment. We accept the Australian Democrats' amendment which states that after these Bills have been passed-clearly they will be passed-the explanatory notes be referred to the appropriate Estimates committee for examination. I would have been quite happy to incorporate that amendment in the second reading motion which I have moved. I am equally happy, on behalf of the Government, to accept it as an amendment to the second reading motion. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.31) —I was not going to enter this debate, but I feel constrained to do so for two reasons. First of all, and most importantly, I believe it is important for us to put at rest this suggestion that what was brought forward today as a matter of public importance by the Opposition was one of insignificance. By definition it was no such thing. The question of the use of defence aid in support of the civil power is a matter which is crucial to democracy. If Senator Chipp or anybody else says that it is not they are not true democrats. Many a democratic country has been overthrown by the unauthorised use of defence aid in support of the civil power. That is one of the most fundamental and crucial questions that confront modern democracy. Secondly, I am concerned about the fact that we have been dragged from every part of Australia to pass only three Bills and have not been given the opportunity to consider the vital issues which confront Australia internally. A large number of people-employers, unions and others in the community-were brought together last week to consider this matter for a whole week. I am not one of those who would suggest that that economic conference was just a public relations extravaganza. However, I believe that the functions and responsibilities of the national Parliament should not become too submerged into the operations and results of that Summit Conference and indeed in its ongoing suggested committee. We should ensure that Australia is not governed by big business, big unions and big government. I do take issue with anyone who suggests that participants at the Conference thought that they were being a party to that. I have spoken to quite a number of them, both from the employers side and the unions side, who considered it their duty first of all to put aside a week to attend in Canberra and to put into their submissions the research and effort that so obviously went into their submissions. It was far from the minds of many of those who attended the Conference that they were trying to usurp the function and role of parliament. Nevertheless, it was surely for the Government, once the Parliament met, to provide us with adequate opportunity to debate the issues which were raised at the Conference. This the Government has not done. It has not provided either the House of Representatives or the Senate with this opportunity. Instead, it has chosen in the House of Representatives to go on its mad hatter attack on Tasmania by introducing yet another Bill to attempt to override the properly made decision of the Tasmanian Parliament-not only the Tasmanian Government, the Tasmanian Parliament-by a vote of 51 of its 54 members. Both Labor and Liberal members supported the decision. We are not attempting to divert attention from the real economic issues that confront Australia, the twin evils of inflation and unemployment; it is the Government which is having its attention diverted from these twin evils. It was on the issue of unemployment and the fear of future unemployment that the Government was elected. It owes absolutely nothing to those who suggest that the issue was the Franklin Dam. What absolute nonsense . People are losing their balance and perspective over this issue. To give an example, on an Australian Broadcasting Commission program the leader of the push in Tasmania, Dr Bob Brown, said of the dams issue that it was possibly the greatest crisis this century. That is an example of the balance that has been lost in this debate. After all, we have had two world wars, the Great Depression , fires, floods and famines, yet Dr Brown is saying that this is possibly the greatest crisis this century. Some members of the Government are tagging along with that nonsense. If the Government looks at its vote in the election and compares the vote in the House of Representatives with the increased vote in the Senate it will find that it is very similar. The Government owes absolutely nothing to the so-called conservation groups. It certainly does not owe the fact that it gained government to them. It owes government to the fact that Malcolm Fraser was defeated on the unemployment issue. That is why I support the amendment moved by the Opposition expressing concern that we have not been given an adequate and timely opportunity to debate the national issues related to the National Economic Summit Conference held in Canberra last week. I fully support that amendment. I believe that it ought to be carried. Amendment negatived. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.40) —I think it might be easier if I seek leave to move the amendment to both Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and Appropriation Bill (No. 3). Leave granted. Senator HAINES —I would also like to take this opportunity-since I was not able to do it the last time I was on my feet-to say that the Australian Democrats support, as does the official Opposition, the passage as expeditiously as possible of the three Bills being considered. I understand that the Loan Bill and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) are required with some urgency by the Government and that although Appropriation Bill (No. 3) is not quite as urgently required it seems sensible to get the debate over and done with today. As the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) said in his second reading speech, the contents of the legislation before us today are fairly innocuous and non- contentious, which of course is not to say that some of the details contained within the Bills should not be submitted to thorough examination by the Senate. But for the sake of speed it seems appropriate not to do it at the Committee of the Whole stage but to pass the Bills and then refer them to the appropriate Estimates committees. That indeed is what I intend to do with my amendments. In the interests of expedition, I move: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Votes contained in the Schedule to this Bill should be referred to the appropriate Estimates Committees for examination and report at the same time as the Additional Estimates for the year 1982-83 are referred to those Committees'. I understand from comments made by both Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Walsh that both the official Opposition and the Government are supportive of that. I thank them for their support. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed. Amendment (by Senator Haines) agreed to: At the end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Votes contained in the Schedule to this Bill should be referred to the appropriate Estimates Committees for examination and report at the same time as the Additional Estimates for the year 1982-83 are referred to those Committees.' Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Assent to the following Bills reported: Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Bill 1982. Salaries and Wages Pause Bill 1982. Special Employment-related Programs Bill 1982. Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1982. Customs Securities (Anti-dumping) Amendment Bill 1982. National Crimes Commission Bill 1982. Royal Commissions Amendment Bill 1982. Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 1982. Bank Account Debits Tax Bill 1982. Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Bill 1982. Conciliation and Arbitration (Management of Organizations) Amendment Bill 1982. Dried Fruits Export Charges Amendment Bill 1982. Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1982. Cotton Research Bill 1982. Cotton Levy Bill 1982. Social Security Amendment Bill 1982. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Bill 1982. Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1982. Asian Development Fund Bill 1982. Defence Force Discipline Bill 1982. Defence Force (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1982. Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1982. Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1982. Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1982. Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 1982. Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Bill 1982. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —The House of Representatives has transmitted to the Senate the following message which has been distributed to honourable senators: Message No. 5 MR PRESIDENT, The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day: The House of Representatives, recognizing the desirability of a thorough review of the Australian Constitution in the light of experience since its establishment and of modern day requirements, agrees that the Commonwealth Parliament continue its participation in the Australian Constitutional Convention established to review the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and accordingly resolves: (1) That, for the purposes of the Convention- (a) a delegation from the Commonwealth Parliament take part in the deliberations of the Convention, and comprise sixteen members of the Parliament of whom six shall be members of the Senate and ten shall be members of the House of Representatives; (b) the ten members of the House of Representatives comprise five members of the Australian Labor Party, three members of the Liberal Party of Australia and two members of the National Party of Australia. (2) That- (a) the Prime Minister and four other members of the House of Representatives, being members of the Australian Labor Party, nominated by him; (b) the Leader of the Opposition and two other members of the House, being members of the Liberal Party of Australia, nominated by him; and (c) two members of the House, being members of the National Party of Australia, nominated by the Leader of that Party, be members of the Delegation. (3) That the Prime Minister be the Leader of the Delegation, and the Leader of the Opposition be the Deputy Leader. (4) That a member of the Delegation cease to be such a member if- (a) he ceases to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament; (b) the House of the Parliament of which he is a member terminates his appointment; or (c) he resigns as a member of the Delegation by writing addressed to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case requires. (5) That where, because of illness or any other cause, a member of the Delegation is not available to attend a meeting, or part of a meeting, of the Convention, the Leader or senior available member of the Party in the House from which the member was drawn may nominate an alternate member (being a member of the House of which the first-mentioned member is a member) and the member so nominated shall be a member of the Delegation for that meeting, or that part of that meeting. (6) That, in the event of a member of the Delegation ceasing to be such a member, the Leader of the Party in the House from which the member was drawn may nominate another member (being a member of the House of which the first- mentioned member is or was a member) to replace the first-mentioned member. (7) That the Leader of the Delegation from time to time make a report for presentation to each House of the Parliament on matters arising out of the Convention; and that the Deputy Leader of the Delegation may make an accompanying report. H. A. Jenkins Speaker House of Representatives, Canberra, 21 April 1983 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill will increase the weekly rate of unemployment benefit for persons aged 18 or more who have no dependants. From 1 May 1983, the benefit will rise from $64.40 to $68.65 a week, so that those persons will be paid the additional amount of the automatic CPI increase which eligible pensioners and married beneficiaries will receive. The Government considers this an urgent priority because of the unwarranted cut in the living standards of the single adult unemployed since 1978. Between 1973 and 1978, the single adult unemployment benefit rate was the same as the rate for single pensioners and sickness beneficiaries. In 1978, the previous Government froze this rate of benefit while continuing to index pension and sickness benefit rates. Since then, the pension has had eight automatic CPI adjustments while the single adult unemployment benefit has had only three minor ad hoc increases. The rate is now around 17 per cent below the standard rate of pension and sickness benefit and, without the May increase, would fall to some 22 per cent below the standard pension rate. it would also be less than half the rate payable to a married unemployed couple. It cannot be in dispute that the unemployed are the major victims of the economic downturn of the past few years. The demoralisation of the unemployed due to their jobless state has been compounded by the discrimination evident in the lower payments made to them by the previous Government. During the election campaign, the Government committed itself to return to the pre-1978 position by progressively increasing the single adult unemployment benefit rate to the single pension rate. This Bill represents the first step towards achieving that goal. The cost of adjusting the unemployment benefit by this initiative is estimated at $15m for the remainder of this financial year, and $106m in 1983-84. The passage of this Bill will assist an estimated average of some 400,000 single adult beneficiaries this financial year and an estimated average of 480,000 in 1983-84. These totals include special beneficiaries and sickness beneficiaries whose benefit rate is limited to the single rate of unemployment benefit. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.49) —The Opposition supports the Social Security Amendment Bill. The main reason that we support the legislation is that it adopts a measure which was foreshadowed in the former Government's policy speech on 15 September. It was agreed that we would propose upon election to upgrade the unemployment benefit by $4.25 a week in line with the September increase in the consumer price index. We on the Opposition side of the Senate are very pleased to recognise that once again, as in other areas, the new Government has adopted our policies. We hope that trend will continue as evidence of government recognition of the wisdom of following that course. For some years, while in Opposition, its supporters found it difficult to argue against following such a course but, having advanced their own alternatives, they have now found them difficult to implement. A number of other issues have arisen in recent times in connection with the payment of the unemployment benefit. The whole matter is, of course, one involving social security. Considerable confusion concerning future policies has been generated by the Government, since coming to office, in the minds of pensioners, superannuants, the unemployed and other welfare recipients. I note that even yesterday there was a specific reference, in the Governor-General's Speech, to a comprehensive review being undertaken of budgetary commitments in regard not only to outlays but, significantly, to taxation expenditures also. I recall that term being used by the famous Coombs committee during the period in office of the Whitlam Government, which adopted the approach of investigating so -called expenditures by way of a taxation system. By coincidence, there is in today's edition of the National Times a significant article on the subject attributed to Mr Geoff Kitney, who appears to have been very well backgrounded on Government policy generally in regard to this aspect. A great deal of attention is to be paid to it. In that context I would like to draw attention to the fact that, although I believe the Prime Minister (Mr Bob Hawke) stated only recently that there would be no change in regard to the taxing of superannuation payments, a very significant conclusion has been drawn by Mr Kitney which leads one to the conviction that this question is indeed wide open. That must be brought to the attention of the public as there has as yet been no clear indication from the Government as to its policy in this, or indeed in a number of other, areas. That is quite evident from the tone of the Governor-General's Speech. Perhaps one should draw attention to one or two other points because, during the recent National Economic Summit Conference debate a great deal of attention was paid to the question of unemployment; great interest has been shown in it. Indeed, the Governor-General's Speech referred to job creation programs of one kind or another to combat unemployment. Reference was made to a specific road program, to be implemented in due course, presumably to employ young people. Those kinds of policies warrant close attention but when one considers the remarks of Ministers, especially in relation to their own little pet projects, one must feel some concern about whether the Government actually intends to carry out these programs. I draw to the attention of the Senate certain remarks attributed to the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones. As reported in an article in the Australian on 25 March, Mr Jones said that hopes of social security recipients could be dashed as the Federal Government strove to promote growth in the economy. He is reported to have said that increased social welfare payments could be swapped for more government funding of high technology industries as the Government looks to support silicon chip type industries, the big growth areas of the 1980s. I wonder whether that kind of thinking is to be applied by this Government in relation to programs such as it outlined in the Governor-General's Speech. I would like to know, and so would the people of Australia, what the Government's policy is in relation to welfare benefits. Did it not come to office on the promise that it would increase welfare benefits to the tune of $430m? Have we now not been conditioned to expect that those benefits will automatically accrue? What, for instance, has happened with regard to the promise of the Government in its election campaign to increase social security benefits for aged pensioners up to the full 25 per cent of average weekly earnings? The cost of that would be of the order of $11, 000m. Is the Government proposing to discard that promise? We need answers to these questions because I think the Prime Minister skated over them all too glibly and, of course, has unsettled the public in a very significant way in recent times. In addition, there was, of course, the Prime Minister's promise in the election campaign to cut taxation by $630m. He said: ' I offer no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the election'. Not only has he snatched back the so-called fistful of dollars in relation to taxation but also it appears that superannuation and other welfare benefits are now at risk under this Government. We need more information from the Government as to its intentions rather than the broad statements which were incorporated in the Governor-General's Speech yesterday and which, of course, would be more unsettling than reassuring to that great mass of people who are dependent upon welfare benefits. Those points will no doubt become matters for further debate in this place in the months ahead, but let it be said that the Opposition strongly supports this piece of legislation for the increase of benefits for unemployed people 18 years of age and over without dependants simply because it was part of our election platform and manifesto in recent times. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.57) —The Social Security Amendment Bill amends the Social Security Act to increase the unemployment benefit for recipients aged 18 years of age and over without dependants from $64.40 per week to $68.65 per week as from 1 May. It pleases me to hear that the Opposition is supporting this legislation. I hoped that it would have supported it even if, as it says, it had not suggested it in the first place, and I trust that it will support in future similar increases in welfare payments to those people who are on the receiving end of some of the worst problems facing Australian society at the moment. I endorse fully the comments that the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) included in his second reading speech. I should like to raise only one other matter very briefly at this time; that is, that despite the fact that unemployment benefits for this group of people have been increased by some $4 they are still something like $20 below the latest poverty line figures supplied by the Melbourne Institute for Applied Economic and Social Research last November and are still $14 below that level if housing costs are excluded. I can appreciate the fact that the record deficit this Government has inherited from the preceding Government is something of a hindrance in correcting a lot of the anomalies that exist in the social welfare system, but I nevertheless urge the Minister, while I have his ear, to look at removing this discrepancy between the poverty line and unemployment benefits for 18 year olds and over without dependants. These people have to eat, the same as everybody else, and they need to rent homes or purchase them if they can, the same as everybody else. They have the same sorts of expenses that most people have. Senator Tate —If you prick them do they not bleed? Senator HAINES —Let us not get into that debate. I am not sure I can deal with Catholics quoting Shylock at this late stage of the debate. I will leave my remarks simply at that. The Australian Democrats support the measures contained in this Bill and request that the Minister turn his not unsympathetic attention to raising the payment still more. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.0) —in reply-I thank the Opposition parties for their support of this legislation. In particular, I thank Senator Haines for confining her remarks to the subject matter of the legislation, unlike the speaker before her. Of course, Senator Haines's remarks about the level of the unemployment benefit for the single unemployed are valid. She knows as well as I do that the reason the single unemployed have reached the present parlous situation with regard to the unemployment benefit is that the previous Government chose in 1978 to deny them indexation of their benefit. I would have liked the Government to have been able immediately to increase the benefit to the standard rate of pensions and benefits in one hit but, as Senator Haines has pointed out, we were faced with a very large Budget deficit which we did not expect, which the Australian Democrats did not expect and which , I believe, most members of the Opposition parties did not expect either. Senator Townley —You aren't very good at arithmetic if you didn't expect it. It was easy to work out. Your arithmetic is very poor. Senator GRIMES —If it was easy to work out I wish that the honourable senator had let the populace know before the election campaign and maybe he and a few others would not be here now to annoy us. In any case it remains Australian Labour Party policy in the long term to increase the benefit to the standard rate of pensions and benefits. We hope to be able to do that in the full term of this Government. Clearly we cannot do it in one hit now. The stage at which we will be able to do it will depend on the State of the economy; we make no bones about that. I will not go into all the points made by Senator Messner at this stage. He mentioned Mr Barry Jones's speech, he mentioned taxation and he mentioned the Governor-General's Speech. In fact he mentioned everything except the legislation before us. The one thing he pointed out though, which is perfectly accurate, is that this move was in the Liberal Party policy speech and in Labor Party policy. But he did not mention that it was the only welfare promise in the whole of the Liberal Party policy speech. We have now completely fulfilled its platform. I assure honourable senators that in the next three years we will try to restore the state of pensions and benefits in this community to somewhere near their relative state in 1975 from which they have been allowed to deteriorate since. I thank the Senate again for the speedy passage of this legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 3 May, at 1.45 p.m. Senate adjourned at 4.5 p.m. until 1.45 p.m., on Tuesday, 3 May 1983. The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute: Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 38. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister, describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Passports Act Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 37 Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 36 and 37. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1983- No. 6-Juries (Amendment). No. 7-Public Assemblies (Repeal).