Tuesday, 10 May 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 1.45 p.m. , and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Discrimination To the Honourable The President, and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And Whereas the terms of the United Nations Covention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological, disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Harradine (from 43 citizens) and Macklin (from 128 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 Senator Giles (from 35 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce: The prospects of trade between Australia and China, with particular reference to: (i) existing trade between Australia and China; (ii) prospects of exports to China -goods -services -technology; (iii) prospects of imports from China; (iv) impact of imports on local manufacturing industry; (v) prospects for a redirection of trade; (vi) economic and political considerations affecting trade with China; (vii) factors inhibiting trade development; (viii) identification and survey of key industries; (ix) trade promotion and services. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes the report and recommendations made by Senator Alan Missen to the Senate on 11th November, 1982 relating to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference held in Rome in September 1982 and urges the Australian Government and Parliament to enter into negotiations with the United States, Great Britain and other European and democratic states to secede from the Inter- Parliamentary Union and to form a new union of genuinely democratic parliamentary states, which will concentrate on the promotion of the parliamentary system and the adaptation of parliament to the needs of modern government. Senator SCOTT —I address my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the Australian Workers Union sponsored shearers' strike which is now in its seventh week. The issue is the use of a wide comb. Commissioner McKenzie of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ruled that the comb may be used with the consent of owners and shearers. The union did not accept this and appealed to the Full Bench of the Commission, which upheld Commissioner McKenzie 's ruling. The Government's reaction is to support the union in yet another application to the Commission. Only yesterday, in north-western New South Wales, some 60 unionists vandalised a wool shed and threatened to burn it, boxed sheep, wasted expensive chemicals, assaulted a man and withdrew without an arrest being made, asserting that they would return. I understand that they have. I ask: Are there controls which are hampering the police in New South Wales in the performance of their duty? Does the Government intend to see the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's determinations upheld and law and order prevail? How does this relate to the Prime Minister's promotion of reconciliation? Will the Government ensure that this intolerable behaviour ceases and that appropriate arrests and charges are made? Will the Minister seek the Prime Minister's urgent attention and action? Senator BUTTON —A number of questions have been asked by Senator Scott in relation to the wide comb shearing dispute. I will endeavour to answer the points that he made. First of all, it is correct that Commissioner McKenzie of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission made a decision regarding this matter in favour, if I can put it that way, of the use of wide comb shears. It is correct to say that since then there have been a number of instances of disputation and, in certain circumstances, violence, particularly between various groups of shearers, relating to the use of wide comb shears. On Friday, 29 April, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, after meeting with the parties-I do not state that categorically but he certainly arranged for senior officers of his department to meet with the parties-again referred the matter to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, not because it was felt that a different decision would be made about the use of wide combs but simply to try to get the parties together to discuss the dispute and to get some process of communication going between shearers, the relevant union and the employers involved. The enforcement of the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is a different issue, of course, from the question which the honourable senator asked me about the role of the New South Wales police. I and this Government have no responsibility for the New South Wales police in respect of these matters. If acts of violence occurred they would be, presumably, reported to the nearest police station. Action may or may not be taken but that is not a matter upon which I can comment. Certainly no controls hamper the police as, I think, the question suggested. This is a very difficult dispute. I said earlier that it is important to get some discussion of the issues around the table. A large number of New Zealand shearers who are used to using a wide comb are working in Australia. That has been a cause, I believe, of additional dispute. It is not the Government's view that this matter can be resolved, as it were, by punitive or police action. The Government is taking all possible steps to see that the disputation about the issue is resolved as quickly as possible. Senator ELSTOB —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health say what the present regulations or practice are regarding the medical records of patients of a doctor who retires, closes the practice or dies? With the side effects of some drugs prescribed to patients becoming evident over the years after they have been taken, in some cases in the second or third generation, will the Minister consider ways by which a central register could be kept, on either microfilm or computer, of the patient's name and drugs prescribed to him or her? Does the Minister also consider this suggestion to be not only beneficial in providing the best health care and patient care but also in maintaining important statistics? Senator GRIMES —It is my belief that at present patients' records in a doctor's practice, that doctor having died or retired, are handed to the person who succeeds him or her in that practice and not to anyone else. However, I will seek further details for Senator Elstob as to the regulations and laws applying in each State. Senator Elstob raised the very important issue in the second part of his question about the difficulties in this country and, in fact, in most other Western countries, in determining how we can best acquire access to the records of patients who are treated in private practice or by doctors of first contact so that we can carry out retrospective studies of people who have been taking various drugs. Because of our laws on privacy in this country there would be very great difficulties in having the medical records of individual patients put on microfilm for purposes such as this. There would probably be considerable resentment within the community about it. The doctor-patient relationship is considered important by both doctors and patients. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Health and get a more detailed reply. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. It follows recent correspondence with the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Did the Minister representing the Minister for Communications act unilaterally in announcing that he would write to the Chairman of the ABC without first seeking the agreement of the responsible Minister, the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy? Did he show the letter to the responsible Minister or to the Prime Minister before sending it, or did he discuss the issue with Mr Duffy beforehand? If not, is this not a serious breach of Cabinet ethics and practices? Senator BUTTON —The last part of the question is a matter about which I do not propose to make a judgment. Senator Hill clearly has. The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to each of the two other parts of the question is no. Senator ROBERT RAY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. When was the previous Government informed of the projected Budget deficit for 1983-84? Secondly, did that Government spend any of the $1.5m that it set aside for publicising Government policies on the issue of the deficit? Senator WALSH —I understand that the previous Government was informed on the Tuesday prior to the election that the impending Budget deficit was over $9 billion, and that on the Friday immediately before the election it was told that the confirmed figure was nearly $10 billion. This, bear in mind, happened during the week in which the then Treasurer, Mr Howard, who is still the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, and the then Prime Minister were telling the nation that if the Labor Party were elected a catastrophic $10 billion deficit would be the result. Labor was elected and we are facing a prospective $10 billion deficit. Of course, the then Prime Minister and the then Treasurer, who is now the most discredited former Treasurer in Australian history, did not tell the truth to the Australian people. During that week, when they had official advice from the Treasury that the deficit would be between $9 billion and $10 billion, they were telling the Australian people that the projected deficit under their Government's policies for next year would be $6 billion. I believe that is typical of the sort of disinformation and misinformation campaign which the Fraser Government, the most discredited former Government in Australian history, gave to the people throughout the seven years it was in power. Finally, that Government was recognised for what it was, that is, a government which was not only incompetent but also untruthful, and it suffered an ignominious defeat. As for the second part of Senator Ray's question, as to whether any of the $1. 5m which was improperly set aside in the 1982-83 Budget for the purpose of financing a Government propaganda campaign for the election which the then Prime Minister intended to hold originally in September, then in November, and eventually did hold in March, was actually spent for the improper purpose for which it was originally appropriated, I do not know. I will check that out with the Treasurer and supply an answer as soon as possible. Senator MASON —Does the Attorney-General share the concern of the Australian Democrats at last week's disclosures in the National Times which, if factual, indicate a serious lack of accountability of our secret service organisation, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, as well as improper actions by ASIO operatives? Is the Minister aware of comments on the AM program this morning by a lawyer to the effect that actions of ASIO operatives, if correctly described, may have amounted to treachery? In particular I draw attention to the way in which ASIO is reported to have collected information on Australian citizens and to have passed this information to other countries for use or potential use in the Australian political process? Will the Minister confirm the authenticity of these reports? Will he advise what urgent measures the Government intends to take to prevent a recurrence of such activities which jeopardise the civil liberties of Australian citizens in a way which allows them no opportunity of defending themselves or setting the record straight? What steps is he proposing to take to ensure that Australian secret service organisations are properly supervised and held accountable for their actions? Finally, what will be the policy of this Government as to whether journalists should be compelled to reveal the sources of their information in such matters? Senator GARETH EVANS —The matters in the National Times articles were of considerable concern to the Government. We have made that clear in the action we have subsequently taken. The authenticity of the articles as a whole, or of any particular part of them, is not a matter about which I believe it is proper to comment, certainly at this stage, for reasons that are quite familiar in dealing with security matters of this kind. In a sense an endless succession of questions as to the authenticity of each part of the document-while it may be doing no damage in one particular case-can result, by a process of elimination, in the authenticity of some remaining part being thus established. I think that is a well understood dilemma that all governments, however committed to freedom of information they may be, find themselves in. To the extent that there was any truth in the material, so far as the conduct of ASIO is concerned, it gives rise to quite profound concern by this Government as I imagine it would to any government. Of course that will lead to our taking appropriate action. I simply add in that respect that the matters referred to governing, in particular, the internal conduct of ASIO were, if true, matters relating to the situation within that organisation as it existed before the report of the Hope Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security and its aftermath action rather than purporting in any way to reflect the present day situation. I think the matter ought to be put in that perspective. As to the accountability of ASIO I repeat for the record-as I have on numerous occasions both during the election campaign and previously-that this Government has a commitment to revising the governing legislation of ASIO in order to make for substantially greater accountability, both in terms of direct accountability to the government of the day and direct accountability in some significant respects to the Opposition of the day, regular judicial audits, better financial accountability through the Auditor-General and also more informative annual reports to the Parliament. It is also a matter of better mechanisms, under the Security Appeals Tribunal, to ensure that ASIO observes its charter when embarked upon surveillance and other operations purportedly within its sphere of action. All those matters are under very active review by the Government and were under active review prior to last week's matters. As to the question of requiring journalists to disclose their sources, the Government is well appreciative of how sensitive a matter that is. No action that has been taken in the High Court of Australia has involved any obligation upon the journalists in question to disclose their sources to the Government. Whether or not there is a case for any change to the law as it presently stands- which, of course, gives no protection to journalists from disclosing their sources if they are put to that test in the court-is a matter for review taking into account what are obviously serious questions of principle on both sides of the argument. Senator COOK —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, refers to the frequently stated intention of the Government to introduce a resource rent tax to replace the existing system of levies on mineral production and export. I ask the Minister: Why does the Government want to make this change to resource taxation? Senator WALSH —I think it might be advisable, for the benefit of the honourable members on the Opposition benches in particular, to attempt to explain to an unreceptive target group the concept of rent and why we propose to change the taxation system. In its original Ricardian agricultural sense, rent was the difference between the grain yield-- Senator Withers —Here we go. Senator WALSH —I suggest that the honourable senator pay attention. If he can absorb it he might be able to try to pass on his new-found knowledge to the troglodytes who run the Liberal Party of Australia in his State and who, in the space of two weeks, lost governments in Canberra and in Perth and lost two- thirds of the party's representation in the House of Representatives and one- third of its representation in the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest the Minister direct his answer through the Chair . Senator WALSH —In its original sense, rent was the difference between the grain yield from the most unproductive land in cultivation and the higher yield from all other land. In a modern sense, it means any return to capital and labour in excess of that which is required to attract and hold the required level of resources in an industry. Rent accrues to all but the most marginal land and all but the most marginal mines. It accrues to other producers who are licensed in a restricted way and to other restricted entry occupations. The existence of rent in mines has long been implicitly acknowledged by the charging of royalties, which are usually levied on quantity production, on output. Sometimes those royalties are very high. The excise on Australian crude oil from the Bass Strait is a good example of a very high royalty-type payment. The chief faults of royalty-type payments are, firstly, that they are applied equally, generally speaking, to both high cost producers and low cost producers. Therefore, the low cost producers are paying a royalty which is too low and which gives an insufficient return to society, which is the ultimate owner of the resource, and the high cost producers pay royalties or taxes which are too high. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. The answer which is being given by the honourable senator is one which may well be of great value to the Senate in enlightenment but it is scarcely an answer to a question. It is a statement and explanation of the theory behind the resource rent approach to tax. I ask the Chair to require a reasonably prompt answer to a question. I am sure the Minister would be able to talk for an hour, as he told us in Question Time on a previous occasion. This is not the occasion on which to deal with a statement on the theory behind resource rent tax. The PRESIDENT —I remind the Senate that Ministers are entitled to answer questions in the way in which they so choose but at the same time Ministers should take note of the fact that they are not entitled to debate matters at Question Time. I suggest that the Minister make his answer as succinct as possible. Senator WALSH —Mr President, in support of your ruling, the question of course explicitly sought an explanation of the reasons why the Government plans to make this change. I will not be very much longer with my answer, Mr President. I suggest that it would be in the long-term interests of the honourable senators opposite if, instead of screeching like a bunch of galahs, they actually applied whatever intellect they have to attempting to understand-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to respond to the question asked by Senator Cook. Senator WALSH —The second principal fault of the types of taxes which are applied on rent now, and which have always been applied on the rent which exists in mines, is that such taxes impose a tax on marginal production and thereby induce social waste. Both of those undesirable faults in the existing system of taxation on mining enterprises are avoided if an appropriate tax directed at rent is introduced. Senator Lewis —I ask that the documents that the Minister was reading from be tabled. Senator MISSEN —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, relates to the Minister's statement to the House of Representatives on 4 May 1983, and in particular to his announcement: . . . the Ministry has not had sufficient time to give expression to the sentiments that we advanced in opposition about the use of the committee systems in the Parliament'. In the light of the undertaking made by the Government upon its election that it would take the opportunity of completely revamping the way in which the policy committees of the House of Representatives, together with the joint committees, are structured and the firm commitments made by the Prime Minister on election night that this Government would reform the committee system so as to use the talents of all members of parliament, including members of the Opposition, I ask the Minister: Why has the Government not given greater priority to this task so that the House of Representatives will have established from the commencement of the Parliament a committee system of similar policy coverage and effectiveness as the Senate committee system? Is this inaction and the re-establishment of the old committees last week only another example of the Government's resolve to back away from its election undertakings and to avoid the scrutiny of its policies and legislation by effective all-party committees? Senator GARETH EVANS —A noble effort was in fact made by the Special Minister of State in conjunction with other Ministers and other members of parliament during the transition-to-government period and during this Government's first weeks in office to set in place some more rational committee system in the House of Representatives and, indeed, to integrate it better through the joint committee structure with the total committee system of the Parliament. There were, however , a number of different views, as the honourable senator would no doubt be able to imagine, on that issue by people who shared nonetheless the commitment to improving and streamlining the system. It might be said that there are a number of people who are profoundly conservative about the parliamentary committee system, not for reasons of desire to shelter behind inefficient procedures but simply because they feel comfortable in the existing structures. The reality of the matter was that it was very evident that a further process of consultation, including consultation with other parties, needed to take place if we were to be able to rationalise the committee structure in a way that was universally acceptable. The answer to the second part of the honourable senator's question is no. Senator MISSEN —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Has that consultation with the other parties taken place since the election? Senator GARETH EVANS —My understanding is that it has. I will refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister in order to get some better detail about that. But certainly I know that it is his present intention over the winter recess period to develop a committee structure that is acceptable to everyone. Senator COLSTON —I direct to the Minister representing the Treasurer a question relating to the Foreign Investment Review Board's refusal to allow Korean participation in the Jackson-Moonie oil pipeline. Is it correct, as the Courier- Mail of 5 May reported was stated by the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke- Petersen, that the Koreans took the initial risks in relation to the project and after that others became interested? Or is it correct, as the National Times of 6 to 12 May reported was implied by the General Manager of CSR Ltd, Mr Bryan Kelman, that the Korean group, ICC, became involved in the Jackson-Moonie pipeline due to pressure brought to bear on the other partners by the Queensland Premier? Senator WALSH —The situation, as I understand it, is that the Australian partners had fully arranged the finance for the project and did not want any foreign partner or equity. They were then leaned upon, I think it would be fair to say, by the Queensland Government to accept the Korean partner, ICC. Given the normal free enterprise rhetoric of the Queensland Government, that seems to be a rather extraordinary decision to interfere in the satisfactory arrangements which had already been made by Australian businesses, against the will of Australian businesses. It also raises the question of the extraordinary sympathy which that Korean firm, ICC, has been able to attract from the present Government of Queensland and the former Government of Western Australia. That firm was let a tender for the construction of one-third of the Dampier to Wagerup pipeline, which was not, I understand, put out to tender. That firm had no previous experience anywhere in the world in constructing that sort of pipeline. I could speculate about the special relationship which that Korean firm appears to have had with one present and one former conservative State government as to what considerations may have been made in order to induce both of those governments to act in a way which favoured the interests of that particular firm against the interests and desires of Australian firms. I could speculate about that matter but I do not propose to do so at this stage. Senator COLLARD —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Why did his letter to the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission give details only of the complaint about ABC management action in relation to AM reporter Helen O'Neil and not cover the subsequently released approaches by Mr Hawke to Professor Kramer on other matters? Was this omission because the Leader realised that, in revealing the other matters, he and Mr Hawke would be exposed for their blatant attempts to stop the ABC running a particular story? Will ministerial interference in the independence of the national broadcasting authority be a continuing feature of this Government's administration? Further, since the Prime Minister indicated publicly some knowledge of the contents of Senator Button's letter, did he know of the convenient errors in it? Senator BUTTON —There are a number of parts to Senator Collard's question, but let me start once again, if I can, from the beginning. I am asked first of all: Why did I not in the letter to Professor Kramer cover a wide range of issues which subsequently became public knowledge? The answer is simply that when I was asked a question in the Senate about this matter I said that Professor Kramer had not, in my view, always acted without fear or favour in respect of the public affairs programs of the ABC. In my view to establish that point it was sufficient to itemise one matter in the letter which I sent to Professor Kramer. Senator Peter Baume —You were wrong. Senator BUTTON —That is a matter for judgment but in my view it was sufficient for me to itemise one point in the letter to Professor Kramer to establish my view. But, of course, subsequent to this question being asked and answered in the Senate, Professor Kramer took up a cry which was commenced by Senator Baume that first of all I had used parliamentary privilege in some way to attack or defame her-- Senator Peter Baume —So you have. Senator BUTTON —I am prepared to debate that with the honourable senator. The second point of the allegation was that I had been defamatory in what I had said and the third point was that she did not understand what I was talking about. Last week the issues were firstly whether I had used parliamentary privilege to defame Professor Kramer and, secondly, whether she knew what I was referring to when I gave that answer in the Senate. Let me say in regard to two of the three matters, which are matters of public discussion, that if anybody else wants to say outside the House what was said on the ABC program on 4 February this year let that person do it and see how he or she gets on. They were the two principal matters discussed with Professor Kramer as was the Helen O'Neil incident in the same context. Those matters became the subject of debate last week. They are matters of dispute between Professor Kramer and me as to a set of facts. My recollection has been challenged on the question. Professor Kramer has now given quite explicit details of the three complaints allegedly made by Mr Hawke. Let us look at what Professor Kramer said when she was making the allegation that I had used the privileges of parliament to defame her in some way. Let us see what she said about that question when appearing on the Nationwide program on 4 May. Geraldine Doogue asked: . . . have you any idea what Senator Button meant when he suggested that you hadn't always acted without fear or favour. The answer was: I have absolutely no idea and I am astonished that he should have made such an accusation within Parliament where he has privilege and I hope that he will come outside Parliament and explain what he means. I might interpolate that I had no hesitation in doing that and I have never hesitated from criticising the Commission of the ABC on particular issues. Geraldine Doogue went on to ask: No ideas about, maybe problems that occurred during the campaign between the ABC and the Labour Party. There are stories that there were some complaints. Dame Leonie Kramer replied: Well, my understanding is that both major parties felt that our election coverage had been very fair and very reasonable and there has been no complaint of any kind from either party since that coverage. Dame Leonie Kramer was again asked: 'Are there any stories that have been referred to you about the Four Corners program?' The answer was: . . . none at all. No. Geraldine Doogue asked: No stories referred up that you may have expressed dissatisfaction with that could have filtered back to the Labour Party in any shape or form. Dame Leonie Kramer replied: Nothing of any kind . . . I am absolutely mystified . . . That is the context of the discussion about people's recollection of what took place between Professor Kramer and me and Professor Kramer and the Prime Minister during the context of the election campaign. The answer to the question of whether interference will be a continuing endeavour of this Government is, of course, no. The legislation which will be introduced into this Parliament by this Government in the next few weeks will provide a complaints procedure which will obviate the necessity for anything of that kind in the future and will ensure-- Senator Walters —I can imagine Mr Hawke ringing the complaints section. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Button has the floor. Senator BUTTON —It will mean, for example, that if the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as the national independent broadcasting service, makes statements which are untrue and defamatory of members of this Parliament, those complaints will be investigated by an independent officer and, if necessary, the ABC would be requested to retract. That is an appropriate procedure which is identical almost to the procedures of the British Broadcasting Corporation. That will be introduced in the legislation which will shortly be coming before Parliament. So the answer to the final part of Senator Collard's question is that this Government is committed to the independence of the ABC and to procedures which will ensure greater independence than it has ever had in the past. Senator PRIMMER —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware of reports in the newspapers claiming that many people who had suffered loss of or damage to their homes as a result of the Ash Wednesday bushfires have experienced difficulty in obtaining an equitable settlement from their insurers? Is he aware, in particular, of claims that in many cases insurers have held that householders were under-insured and have limited their settlement to an amount that is insufficient to cover damage incurred and that in other cases insurers have held that householders were over-insured and have limited their settlement to amounts less than the sum insured? Is the Minister, as the Minister responsible for the administration of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme, satisfied that all policy holders under that scheme who suffered loss or damage in the tragic circumstances of the Ash Wednesday bushfires have been adequately and equitably compensated and that their claims have been dealt with without delay or inconvenience? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Primmer, who comes from Victoria and represents a rural constituency, would be well aware that there are great problems about the bushfires on the outskirts of our major cities in Victoria and South Australia. I thank him for the question because there is no doubt that, as a result of those disastrous fires that took place in February, not only were there personal tragedies but also a number of financial tragedies affecting great numbers of our citizens. It is true that considerable public criticism is being levelled at insurance companies to the extent that large numbers of claims have not been satisfactorily dealt with by the companies concerned. I can assure the Senate that that is not the case with respect to the Defence Service Homes Corporation. Perhaps the Senate would be interested to know that both Mr Justice Kirby, the Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, and the Victorian Minister of Consumer Affairs have called for an urgent review of insurance forms as they relate to fire insurance problems. They have called for a standardised form so that the sorts of problems faced by the citizens who lost their homes in those disastrous fires in Victoria and South Australia can be minimised in future. We are talking of claims involving something in excess of $200m. I am led to believe that the Ministers responsible for consumer affairs from the various States will be meeting during May for the purpose of establishing some common ground in these areas so that the sorts of financial tragedies that occurred subsequent to the fires will be obviated in future. So far as defence service homes are concerned, I am advised that there is no particular problem with respect to the claims that have been submitted-some 102 in total. Twenty-seven homes in Victoria and two in South Australia were totally destroyed. At this moment only five such claims have not yet been finalised. Of course, under our scheme-the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme-only the actual building is insured, whereas some of the conflicts that exist in other areas deal with the contents of homes. There are, of course, differences between the insurance companies and the claimants. I assure the Senate that those claims that are still in dispute will be satisfactorily resolved because the intention of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme is to meet as far as practicable the claims of those who unfortunately lost their possessions during those fires. Senator LAJOVIC —Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree with descriptions of his charges against the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission as being frivolous, vexatious and trivial in the extreme or does he still seriously ask us to accept his view put here last week that Professor Kramer had not always acted without fear or favour? Does the factual error in his letter to the Chairman concerning the circumstances of the Helen O'Neil interview reflect the confused and intemperate nature of his attack? Will he now , in view of widespread condemnation of his actions, publicly apologise to Professor Kramer? Senator BUTTON —I have indicated my view about Professor Kramer on a number of occasions. My view is that she is a very distinguished Australian and talented scholar. That view, however, does not prevent my having differences of opinion with her about particular matters, and I would be very sorry if it did. I do not accept the description of the charges that I made as being frivolous, vexatious and trivial. In relation to the second portion of the question, I simply say that I refer to my answer on Wednesday, 4 May. Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I remind the Minister that the previous Government did incalculable damage to the Greek community and to racial harmony in Australia when it instituted terrifying dawn raids and cancelled hundreds of invalid pensions almost five years ago. As all the pensioners were admitted to be innocent when the Liberal-National Party Government withdrew from the case nearly a year ago, what does this Government intend to do about holding an inquiry into the circumstances of the arrests, the stopping of the pensions and benefits and other relevant matters associated with this outrageous incident? Senator GRIMES —The so-called social security conspiracy case was a matter with which I was associated in this Parliament from the time it started. It caused great concern at the time not only to the Greek community but also to the then Opposition and all sensible Australians. Many aspects of the case caused us concern at that time and have continued to do so. I refer to the nature of the raids which were conducted on the first day; the manner in which the charges were laid; the conduct of the case and the fact that after costing in excess of $10m the charges had to be withdrawn; the magistrate's comments concerning the evidence given by two of the principal witnesses in the case; the matter of compensation to those who were charged, and who had the case hanging over their heads for so long; and the problems faced by those Greek and Australian citizens who went overseas and who in some cases had to return to get justice. In light of these matters I have had discussions with the Attorney-General about what should be done. The Senate will know that before the election we announced that, if elected, we would conduct an inquiry. We will conduct such an inquiry. The nature of the inquiry is a matter for discussion at the moment. The Attorney- General will announce it to the Senate as soon as it has been decided. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the widespread reports that Mr John Menadue is considered likely to be appointed Managing Director of the new Australian Broadcasting Corporation, I ask: Has the Government -or any of its Ministers-taken any steps in furtherance of Mr Menadue's candidature for this position? Has Cabinet-or any group of Ministers-discussed with likely nominees to the board of the Corporation the person it wishes to see appointed to the position of Managing Director? If so, does he agree that such action is totally inappropriate, given that the selection of a Managing Director is a matter not for the Government but for the yet to be appointed board? Senator BUTTON —There has been no discussion of any kind about the likely appointment which the board, when it is appointed, might make to the position of Managing Director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The legislation is not yet through the Parliament. Of course, the legislation provides-I take it that Senator Teague has seen a copy of it-that the board shall make the appointment. I believe that that is a refreshing innovation. The honourable senator asked whether the Cabinet or any group of Ministers had discussed the position of likely nominees to the board. The normal answer to that question, correctly, should be that I am not in a position to disclose whether Cabinet has discussed that matter. I would normally give such an answer. But the answer, in all frankness, is that Cabinet has not considered that matter. It will do so at an appropriate time. I am unable to say whether any group of Ministers-Senator Teague may believe that two, three or four would constitute a conspiracy-has discussed the question of possible appointments to the board. I make it clear that I have discussed the matter with one colleague. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of Senator Button's denial of ministerial canvassing on behalf of Mr Menadue, how does he explain the extensive and apparently authoritative media reporting on this subject? Will he deny that there is any substance to the rumors? Senator BUTTON —There has certainly been no authoritative media reporting; none at all. In fact, the media reporting on this issue has been so authoritative that many journalists have considered Mr Menadue, by way of rumor, as an appropriate chairman of the board, which indicates a total state of confusion. I repeat that there has been no authoritative reporting on that issue at all. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is it a fact that countries such as Korea, Singapore, Yugoslavia, Taiwan and Brazil are still afforded developing country status, entitling them to special trade and tariff concessions? Is it also a fact that it is the highly technical manufacturing industries of these countries which are presently threatening Australia's own manufacturing industries? Given that there has not been a review of this since 1973, can the Minister inform the Senate whether a review of the list of countries receiving developing country preferences in trade arrangements will be forthcoming in the near future? Senator BUTTON —The matters set out in the honourable senator's question are correct, except that I am advised that the last review took place in 1976, not 1973; but that does not seem to me to be a very material fact insofar as the question is concerned. Currently in my Department a review is taking place of the Australian system of tariff preferences for developing countries. I believe that that review ought to be completed, possibly by the end of this month but certainly by early next month. I appreciate Senator Richardson's concern about imports from some of the so-called developing countries, countries which may in a cultural and educational sense not be as developed as Australia but which, certainly in terms of modern technology, are probably well ahead. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. In the conduct of the Australian Broadcasting Commission as a statutory corporation is not the general management and conduct of staff the responsibility of the senior staff officers and the General Manager? Does the Minister suggest that all reprimands of staff members by their senior officers should be made known to the Commission and should be subject to reversal by the commissioners? Under what circumstances should the commissioners interfere with the decisions of management regarding the conduct of staff? Senator BUTTON —In effect, Senator Reid is asking me for an opinion on this matter. Senator Peter Baume —It is a proper question. Senator BUTTON —If I can have the assistance of the Senate, the functions of the Commission are spelt out in the Australian Broadcasting Commission legislation and the Commision is responsible for the statutory corporation which it administers. In the Australian Broadcasting Commission it has been a generally accepted view that decisions about program matters should be left to the program staff. Unfortunately, that is not a course which has always been followed. To cite an example which is close to my mind, last week the current Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission said that her function was to defend the staff of the ABC. On another occasion she said that it was not her function to interfere with the staff of the ABC. By that she meant the program making staff, I assume, because she said that in the context of program makers. That is a totally contrary position to the position which she, as Chairman of the ABC, adopted in October 1982 when there was a complaint from Sir Charles Court about the content of a program. On that occasion Chairman of the ABC certainly did not interfere with the staff, she did not even consult them; she apologised on their behalf for the program without any reference to the program-making staff of the ABC. I raise that example because it is, of course, relevant in dealing with this somewhat confused issue of the role of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I would have thought that if the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission takes upon herself or himself the task of receiving complaints and undertaking to respond to them that would inevitably involve, at some stage, some interference with staff, as indeed did the incident about Sir Charles Court's complaint. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —And the incident with Mr Hawke and you. Senator BUTTON —And the incident with Mr Hawke and me, yes, of course. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that Liberal Prime Ministers have shamelessly manipulated the Australian electoral system over the years to call Federal elections at times of their own choosing rather than allowing the Parliament to run its full term of three years? Has the new Labor Government any proposal which might change the situation to the great benefit of electors who are sick and tired of being forced to the polls and to the great benefit of the nation in the planning of both the public and the private sectors? Senator GARETH EVANS —It will come as no surprise to either the honourable senator or the Senate to know that it is my view, and that of the Australian Labor Party and, indeed, that of most Australians, that there has been shameful manipulation of election dates by Prime Ministers, particularly Tory Prime Ministers, in recent times. It is very much the view of most Australians that good government would be better served in this country by a system of fixed-term parliaments. Accordingly, the Government has today announced a proposed referendum on that subject for 20 August this year, just before Parliament resumes for the Budget session. That issue will be accompanied by three other measures, interchange of powers, advisory opinions and the removal of outmoded provisions from the Constitution, the common theme in all four matters to be put to the people being an improvement in the machinery of government in this country. There is no question of any attempted accretion of power by the Commonwealth at the expense of the States in any of these referendum proposals. Two of them at least, interchange of powers and outmoded provisions, have been the subject of unanimous resolutions at successive meetings of the Australian Constitutional Convention. The matter of advisory opinions has been the subject of strong majority resolutions at that Convention. The matter of fixed-term parliaments was, of course, the subject of some controversy at the most recent Convention but it enjoys strong majority support as is evident from such opinion polls as have been taken. It certainly enjoys strong support from within the Liberal parties in at least three States of this nation. It certainly enjoys strong support within the ranks of the Liberal Party in Canberra as was demonstrated during the debate on the Bill relating to the issue last year when a number of honourable senators from the other side of the chamber crossed the floor. I believe that this is a matter on which genuine consensus is both desirable and necessary and capable also of being achieved. I hope that a dog-in-the- manger attitude towards this proposal is not adopted by our opponents, either when the matters are being debated, as they must be, in the Senate and eventually when they are, as I hope they will be, put to referendum on 20 August . Finally, I add that the rationale of the fixed-term parliaments proposal, going back to the substance of Senator Tate's question, is good government in the sense, not least, of the capacity of both government and the private sector to plan their business with some efficiency and confidence in the predictability of what will occur. One of the greatest debilitating factors in the operation of the Australian economy in recent years-any businessman will say this on the subject if asked-has been the profound uncertainty and unpredictability that has governed the performance of government at thd national level. This is something that will be not only welcomed but also actively sought by the business community for the reason that it appreciates that it is very much in the interests of good government in this nation. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to an answer which he gave earlier in Question Time to Senator Hill in which he advised the Senate that he acted unilaterally in announcing that he would write to the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and indicated that he did not show the letter to the responsible Minister or to the Prime Minister before sending it. He indicated also that he did not discuss the issue with Mr Duffy beforehand. I again ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Did he discuss the letter which he sent to Dame Leonie Kramer with Mr Duffy before it was sent to Dame Leonie? Senator BUTTON —On the assumption that that is the same question which I was previously asked, my recollection is that I certainly did not show the letter to Mr Duffy before I sent it. I certainly did not show it to him. I am unable to say whether I discussed the incident described in the letter with Mr Duffy at some time or another in the last two months, but I certainly did not show him the letter. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. My question related to whether there was any discussion with Mr Duffy about the fact of the letter or its contents before the letter was sent. Senator BUTTON —There was certainly no discussion about the contents of the letter before it was sent. On the afternoon of the 4th of this month I issued a Press statement announcing that I intended to write to Professor Kramer about those matters. Whether in the normal course of events Mr Duffy was passed a copy of that Press statement I am unable to say. Senator COLEMAN —I refer the Minister for Social Security to an article in this morning's Canberra Times in which a Mr Tom Brennan claims he was given the run around by the Department of Social Security when he applied for copies of the Department's manuals under the Freedom of Information Act. What views does the Minister hold about the unwillingness of his Department to release the manuals? Is it true that the same officer who reviewed the decision also conducted the internal review required by the Freedom of Information Act? What action will the Minister take to ensure that manuals requested under the Freedom of Information Act are made available? Senator GRIMES —When in Opposition the Australian Labor Party and I at all times supported public access to the manuals and published guidelines of the Department of Social Security. We held that view then, we hold it now and we will continue to hold it. When I became the Minister for Social Security I learnt that my Department was fighting an application by Mr Waterford to have access in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the old manuals. After consultation with the Attorney-General it was decided that the Department would withdraw from those hearings as our view then was that access to those manuals was justified. The proviso was given that those manuals were at that stage out of date and contained some inaccuracies. We wished to make it clear to Mr Waterford and Mr Brennan, who was associated with a similar application, that those manuals were inaccurate and out of date. It was normal procedure in the Department up until then that in such a new field as freedom of information the most senior officers of the Department would be involved in both the early decision making and its later reviews. I express the view that the Government and I are opposed in principle to review officers, in circumstances like that and that of the review of invalid pensions, being people who took a part in the making of the original decisions. In that regard, if Mr Waterford's report is accurate-I am checking on whether it is accurate-we would not like that situation to arise, although when it did arise the Department had some difficulties because the most senior people in the Department were making the decisions. Such officers are, of course, limited in number and finding a review officer meant going to that same level of officers in the Department. In relation to the general implementation of the Freedom of Information Act as it affects the Department of Social Security, 80 per cent of requests received have been for access to personal documents. Of the 736 requests received, 530 have been decided upon, all within the statutory time limit of 60 days. I am sure that the Department will continue to do that. The Department is aware that there is a new Government, and that it has views on freedom of information which it expressed in Opposition and continues to express in Government. I am sure that the Department will conform to those views and to both the spirit and the word of the legislation which is in place and which, I understand, will be modified in the near future. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I lay on the table explanatory notes of departments and authorities relating to the Estimates of proposed Additional Expenditure for 1982-83. The list of departments and authorities from which notes have been received is as follows: Aboriginal Affairs Administrative Services Attorney-General's Australian Development Assistance Bureau Aviation Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Communication Defence Defence Support Education and Youth Affairs Employment and Industrial Relations Finance Foreign Affairs Health Home Affairs and Environment Housing and Construction Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Industry and Commerce Primary Industry Prime Minister and Cabinet - Office of National Assessments - Commonwealth Ombudsman - Australian Science and Technology Council - Auditor-General's Office Public Service Board Resources and Energy Science and Technology Senate Social Security Special Minister of State Sport, Recreation and Tourism Territories and Local Government Trade Transport Treasury Veterans' Affairs Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-Prior to the double dissolution, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts was inquiring into the development and implementation of a co-ordinated language policy for Australia. This inquiry is wide in scope. Its objective is to examine the need for, and nature of, a comprehensive national language policy for Australia. Central to the inquiry is an examination of the role of, and need for, English and other languages in Australia, including Aboriginal languages and the language needs of the deaf and disabled. The problems of the illiterate, the need for translating and interpreting services and the teaching of languages are covered by the terms of reference. This inquiry has generated considerable interest and expectations. These have been reflected in conferences organised to discuss the issues, the large number of submissions and correspondence received, as well as the enthusiasm and efforts of the many interested parties. At a private meeting last Thursday, 5 May, 1983, the new Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts decided to continue with the inquiry. During the previous Parliament, the Committee conducted a number of preliminary public and private hearings. It had just begun its main program of public hearings when the Parliament was dissolved. The Committee is now planning further public hearings. These will be held in Canberra on 20 and 30 May, in Adelaide and Perth next month, and in the Northern Territory, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne in July. The Committee plans to report to the Senate in the Autumn session next year. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —by leave-During the Thirty-second Parliament the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce commenced an inquiry into the Australian export coal industry. Since the election in March, a number of developments have occurred in the coal industry which have had a direct bearing on the state of our inquiry. In particular, on 30 March 1983 the Australian Coal Consultative Council was established to provide a new forum for continued discussion and review of the industry's economic and structural problems. This 27-member Council, with representatives from the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Queensland governments, coal boards, unions and mining companies, held its inaugural meeting in Canberra on Friday, 28 April 1983. The formation of this Consultative Council is fully endorsed by all members of my Committee. With the establishment of this Council, my Committee now believes that it would be inappropriate to continue our inquiry. We feel that it is only fair to allow this representative Council time to settle in and come to terms with a number of extremely fluid and sensitive industrial and economic problems that presently confront the industry. Had we decided to continue with our inquiry it would have overlapped, in many areas, with the work that is to be undertaken by the Council . The Committee is therefore suspending its inquiry until the more immediate problems of the industry have been addressed by the ACCC. Once this has occurred the Committee will then reconsider its terms of reference of the inquiry in the light of the industry situation then prevailing. In conclusion, I would like to thank all the organisations and people that have already participated in the inquiry and trust that they will co-operate fully with the Australian Coal Consultative Council during its crucial deliberations. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946, in addition to Mr Speaker, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings: Mr Burr, Mr Charles, Mr Ronald Edwards, Mr Hicks and Mr Maher. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts: Mr Cadman, Mrs Kelly, Ms Mayer, Mr O' Keefe, Mr Punch, Dr Theophanous and Mr White. Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Mr Cowan, Mr Drummond, Mr Fife, Mr Keogh, Mr Lindsay and Mr Saunderson. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(2.57) —I move: That the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order to seek some clarification. Various papers have been circulated by the authority of Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I just refer to the advice that we were given by the Government about the ministerial arrangements which indicate that Senator Susan Ryan represents the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I would like clarification as to whether the representation arrangements have been changed, or what the situation is. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, on the point of order, Senator Ryan is the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment; I am simply the Minister representing the Minister for the purpose of this Bill. I do not know whether that demands a formal change in notifications. I would not have thought so. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(2.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill makes provision for the protection and conservation of those places in Australia or under Australian control that are of such outstanding universal value that they are recognised as part of the cultural or natural heritage of the world. The Bill therefore shares the same objective as the World Heritage Properties Protection Bill 1982 that was introduced in this Chamber last year by the Australian Democrats. As I shall explain, the purpose of the Bill is not to exclude or replace other laws that are effective to protect such property. It is designed to provide protection only where property of universal value is being or is likely to be damaged or destroyed. I shall deal first with the general background to this legislation; then I shall explain the approach taken in the Bill; and, finally, I shall refer to the present prospect of damage to the South West Tasmania World Heritage area. For many years, and particularly since the end of the Second World War, there has been growing international awareness of heritage values and a sense of concern and shared responsibility for the protection of the cultural and natural heritage. Many specific examples could be given of this sense of concern, and of Australia's own involvement in it. Australia has expressed its own commitment to heritage values, and to the need to conserve heritage in Australia, under successive Governments. One of the most important international instruments in this field is the treaty known as the World Heritage Convention which is the Schedule to the Bill and which I shall refer to here as 'the Convention'. (Its full title is the ' Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage'.) The Convention entered into force in 1975, and Australia was one of the first parties to it. I think it is important to bear in mind that the Convention is not a solitary example of international concern and co-operation in the heritage conservation area. There are many other such examples, including instances of international co-operation directed to the saving of particular sites, such as the temples of Borobudur in Indonesia and the city of Venice. The preamble to the Convention notes that the deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world. It refers to the importance, for all the peoples of the world, of safeguarding cultural and natural property, notwithstanding that it may belong to a particular people. In addition to the obligations that the Convention places on individual parties , it provides a system for identifying the world's natural and cultural heritage , and a system of collective protection for items of that heritage that may be in danger. The Convention recognises that it is primarily the duty of the country where heritage property is situated to ensure its identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations. The World Heritage Committee established by the Convention consists of representatives of 21 parties. It is responsible for the administration of the system of international assistance and co-operation set up by the Convention. The Convention provides for the nomination (or 'submission') by a party to the Convention of property in its territory that is suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List. The World Heritage List is not to contain all heritage property within a country, but only heritage property that has outstanding universal value in terms of criteria established by the World Heritage Committee . The World Heritage List is therefore a short list of heritage property of special value. A further list-the 'List of World Heritage in Danger'-many contain property appearing in the World Heritage List for the conservation of which major operations are necessary and for which assistance has been requested under the Convention. The system of assistance established by the Convention is available in respect only of property that the World Heritage Committee has decided to enter in the World Heritage List. I now mention some practical details. 72 countries have become parties to the Convention, including the United States and most countries of Western Europe. Many developing countries have also ratified the Convention. 136 properties are on the World Heritage List. These include both cultural heritage, such as temples and other buildings, and natural heritage such as wilderness areas or other natural features. Among the world famous and significant natural areas on the List are the Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon in the United States, Serengeti National Park in Tanzania, Sagamartha National Park-which contains Mount Everest-in Nepal and Australia's own Great Barrier Reef. In all, five Australian sites have been nominated by Australia and found to satisfy the tests for inclusion in the World Heritage List. These are as follows : The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest and most complex expanse of living coral reefs, encompassing a great variety of marine life. There are over 1,500 species of fish and about 400 species of coral. Its great diversity of life-forms make it an area of enormous scientific importance. Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory is an area of over 6,000 square kilometres containing an unusual variety of vegetation, while most of its fauna is rare elsewhere in Australia. Quite apart from its natural heritage value, the Park is of great importance, internationally and to Australia, because of the antiquity and quality of its archaeology and Aboriginal cultural and art sites. The Willandra Lakes Region is a system of dried-up lakes is Far Western New South Wales. Their outstanding universal value lies in the evidence they provide of human occupation dating back more than 30,000 years. Skeletal remains found there are among the oldest evidence of Homo sapiens anywhere in the world and establish the great antiquity of Aboriginal man in Australia. The Willandra Lakes evidence is also important because it enables a reconstruction of the economic life of early modern man, showing a remarkable adapation to local resources and the interaction between culture and the changing environment. The Lord Howe Island group has not only exceptional beauty but an enormous diversity of landscapes. Because of the high proportion of endemic animals and plants, Lord Howe Island provides an outstanding example of independent evolutionary processes and is of great scientific and conservation interest. The islands include the most southerly coral reef in the world, and provide, on the peaks of the main island, the habitat of one of the world's rarest birds, the Lord Howe Island Woodhen. The Western Tasmanian Wilderness National Parks of some 769,000 hectares together cover a large part of one of the last remaining temperate wilderness areas in the world, and have many features of unique significance, to which I shall refer later. Although the identifications of heritage property by Australia are made within the Convention framework-to discharge obligations under the Convention and to enjoy its benefits-this action has several aspects. It focusses awareness on the unique values of the properties concerned and thereby helps to foster concern for their conservation. It draws the attention of the world to the important natural and cultural heritage in Australia, the richness of which can rival that of other regions. This enhances the attraction of these sites to tourists and other visitors from overseas. The prestige of World Heritage Listing is also a source of pride for Australians. Indeed, these are properties which belong to all Australians, who bear a responsibility to the rest of the world for the safeguarding of them. In world heritage matters, Australia has so far played a responsible-and even prominent-role. It has freely acknowledged its responsibilities in this area. In 1981 the former Prime Minister opened the Fifth Meeting of the World Heritage Committee in Sydney. He gave an address entitled 'Australia's Heritage' in which he referred to the Convention as 'an important milestone in the modern history of man's concern not only for his environment, but also for his cultural roots and origins'. He said that 'The concept of world heritage, which includes both the cultural and natural heritage of mankind, and which means that individual nations will hold sites and properties of universal value in trust not just for their own peoples, but for the whole of mankind, is surely a profound expression of co-operation between people and a willingness to share'. The speech went on to describe in glowing terms the ways in which Australia had shown 'its awareness of the need for initiative and action on matters of conservation and the environment'. It concluded by referring to the Committee's task 'in co- operation with the countries of the world . . . of trying to make sure that universally valuable sites and properties from all countries, not just the wealthy and well-provided countries, can find a secure place on the World Heritage List'. Mr President I do not quote those words in a critical way. Indeed, I applaud them. They are directly relevant to the purpose of this Bill. In the past, Australia has clearly articulated its national responsibilities for protecting the heritage. It is a responsibility that cannot now be avoided, and which this Bill seeks to discharge. I now turn to describe the approach to heritage protection taken in the Bill. Mr President, I do not contend that in all circumstances, and in relation to all kinds of heritage property, the only way, or the most appropriate way, to achieve the protection of heritage property is by Commonwealth legisaltion. A property might never be under threat, or a threat might not be capable of being countered by legislation. Another possibility is that the property might be on Commonwealth land or otherwise adequately controlled. A further possibility is that State law or State measures will be adequate. I want to stress at this point the importance we attach to State and Territory co-operation in this area. Nominations by Australia to the World Heritage List have been made in a spirit of co-operation with State authorities. State laws relating to national parks, conservation and heritage protection might well afford a suitable means of meeting any threat to property that might exist. Given a commitment by a State Government to heritage protection, and an awareness by the State of the international importance of such protection, the Commonwealth Government would foresee no need to exercise its own powers. This Bill is to provide a means of protection of last resort: its provisions are to be invoked when it appears that other means are not available or are inadequate or unsuitable to meet a threat of damage or destruction to heritage property. It is the Government's intention that the procedures under the Bill would not be resorted to if effective action can and will be taken under State or Territory law. It follows that there would normally be consultation with the State or Territory. The scheme of the Bill is as follows. The Bill applies to property satisfying two tests. It must answer the description of cultural heritage or natural heritage within the meaning of the Convention (see Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention) and Australia must have identified it as such, either by its nomination for the World Heritage List or by the making of regulations which so identify it. (Provision has been made for the regulations to do this as Australia could have obligations under the Convention in respect of items that have not been nominated.) Before the protective provisions in clauses, 9, 10 or 11 apply to any ' identified property', a Proclamation must be made under clause 6, 7 or 8. Before such a Proclamation can be made, the Governor-General in Council must be satsified that the property is being, or is likely to be, damaged or destroyed. In the Bill, a reference to damage to or destruction of property includes a reference to damage to or destruction of a particular part of feature of the property. The Bill is drafted to draw on all heads of Commonwealth legislative powers that may appropriately be used. The way in which this has been done is briefly outlined in the explanatory memorandum. I draw particular attention to the use of the 'race' power in clauses 8 and 11 of the Bill. This is an appropriate exercise of the power since much of Australia's distinctive heritage of universal value consists of relics of Aboriginal culture. Three of the sites that Australia has already nominated to the World Heritage List are of great importance in this regard. Kakadu National Park consists mainly of Aboriginal land. The significance of Kakadu to Aborigines today is intense, and is evidenced in the offer of their land to the nation so that it could become a truly national park. This significance is also evidenced in the concern shown by traditional Aboriginal owners about the art, archaeological and sacred sites in the Park, and their instructions to the Parks Service for the protective management of their spiritual and cultural heritage. Willandra Lakes Region provides evidence of the great antiquity of Australian Aborigines, and the discoveries have established the richness of Aboriginal culture and have caused a significant reassessment of Aboriginal prehistory and its place in the history of modern man. It has not been possible in the drafting of the Bill to specify in clauses 9, 10 and 11 a complete list of acts that might need to be prohibited to protect properties in danger. Each of these clauses therefore also prohibits acts that are prescribed by regulations for the purpose in relation to the particular property to which each clause relates. At the same time, the acts prohibited by the Bill are not made offences. Should the legislation raise contentious issues needing to be considered by a court, including constitutional issues, these may more conveniently be dealt with under the procedure provided by clause 14, that is, on an application for an injunction restraining a person from doing an act made unlawful by the Bill. Clause 13 contains provisions relating to decisions by the Minister pursuant to Clauses 9, 10 and 11. Under this Clause the Minister is able to determine whether or not to give his consent to acts within a proclaimed property and the clause now provides for his decision to be made public, through publication in the Gazette and by tabling in Parliament. The clause also provides scope for members of broad classes of persons to seek judicial review of the Minister's decision. Following representations on the Bill introduced into the House of Representatives the Government has decided to make it clear in the Bill that the classes of persons described in clauses 13 (5) and 13 (7) have the necessary standing to seek review of decisions of the Minister. Decisions relating to clause 11 will be of particular interest to members of the Aboriginal race. Under clause 13 (7) of the Bill members of the Aboriginal race are entitled to seek judicial review of decisions made by the Minister in relation to clause 11. In addition to Clause 13, the government has also extended the standing provisions in clause 14. Under this provision certain persons, in addition to the Attorney-General, who wish to take action to see that the provisions of the Act are enforced, are able to make application to the Courts for that purpose. This is a most significant development, giving effect to a liberal approach to the question of standing. I should however point out that in relation to clause 11 standing is limited to members of the Aboriginal race. In view of the purpose of clause 11, it does not seem appropriate to extend the right to other persons (except, of course, the Commonwealth in the person of the Attorney-General). I draw the attention of the Senate to clause 15 of the Bill which provides for the tabling in each House of Parliament, of any Proclamation made under clauses 6, 7 or 8 of the Bill. A Proclamation is subject to disapproval by either House of Parliament. This is a similar procedure to that applying to regulations made under an Act but here the period for tabling has been shortened from 15 to 5 sitting days. Mr President, you will be aware that there has been some concern expressed in the community that a proclamation under clauses 6, 7 or 8 might be revoked without sufficient consideration. Clause 16 is included in the Bill to allay these fears in that it will establish Parliamentary control over the withdrawal of any protection that has been extended to identified properties by virtue of a proclamation under claues 6, 7 or 8. The Governor-General will not be able to revoke a proclamation under clauses 6, 7 or 8 unless a resolution approving the proposed revocation has been passed in both Houses of Parliament. I should mention that there is a precedent for this procedure to be found in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, in relation to the revocation of a proclamation of an area as part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Clause 17 of the Bill makes provision for compensation in the event that the operation of the Bill, or the operation of the World Heritage (Western Tasmania Wilderness) Regulations, results in an 'acquisition of property' from any person within the meaning of s. 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution. Whether there will have been such an acquisition will be a technical question of constitutional law. There may be an acquisition in this sense although there may have been no acquisition of property of the kind that is bought or sold in the usual way. Thus existing compensation provisions such as those in the Lands Acquisition Act are not appropriate enough to cover all the types of acquisition that could be relevant here. It is not unusual practice for provision to meet the requirements of s. 51 (xxxi) to be included in a Bill that could result in an 'acquisition of property' in the constitutional sense. Clause 17 is unusual in that it provides a detailed procedure for the investigaton of what compensation, if any, might be payable in the event of a very large claim ($5,000,000 or more). The reason for this provision is that, because there is unlikely to be a direct acquisition of property of a readily ascertainable market value, an investigatory procedure before a special commission is likely to be more appropriate than proceedings before a court. However, there is provision for recourse to a court in the event that a claiment is unsatisfied at the end of the investigatory procedure or where a claim is for less than $5,000,000. I would like to make it clear, Mr President, that clause 17 directs itself only to dealing with cases where there has been an acquisition of property in the constitutional sense. I emphasise that this clause is not an attempt to deal with arrangements for compensation in the more general sense which will need to be considered outside the Bill. By this I mean compensation for persons whose interests have not been affected by an acquisition of property in the strict sense but who have none the less had some change in their position as a result of Government action to protect an identified property. I have in mind the employment opportunities that are seen to exist in the Gordon below Franklin scheme. It is not possible to make provision in the Bill for this type of matter but let it not be thought that the Government is ignoring this question. In relation to South West Tasmania there has already been recognition by the Government of the need for arrangements that would replace the benefits Tasmania expects to receive from construction of the dam. These could include assistance with alternative development projects and alternative schemes to promote employment. It has not been possible to enter into discussions with Tasmania on any such assistance because of the refusal of the Tasmanian Premier to halt work on the dam project. Mr President, I now turn to the specific issue of the proposed construction of the Gordon below Franklin dam in South West Tasmania. There is no question that this project, if allowed to be completed, would destroy a significant part of the heritage value of the Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks, a property that was nominated by Australia for inclusion in the World Heritage List and accepted for inclusion in that list. While this Bill is not aimed solely at the protection of that particular property, it is the inability of the Commonwealth Government to prevent the substantial destruction of the property by non-legislative means that has led to the introduction of this Bill as one of the first parliamentary acts of the Government. In doing this, the Government is fulfilling a commitment given to the people of Australia and is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Australian people. The legal situation that has arisen in relation to the dam illustrates, in a striking way, the need for this legislation and what is at stake in the whole debate over natural and cultural values. The nomination of the Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks was submitted by the Australian Government to the World Heritage Committee at the request of the Government of Tasmania, in November 1981. the nomination that was prepared by Tasmania is an impressive document that draws attention to the unique features of the property. Under the heading 'Justification for Inclusion in the World Heritage List', the nomination refers to Fraser Cave (now Kutikina Cave) as one of the 6 archeologically richest limestone cave sites in the Western Pacific. The unique value of this and other caves in the area has been acclaimed by eminent experts from other countries. Important sites continue to be discovered in South West Tasmania, and indeed as announced recently, a significant new archeological site has been discovered in the Franklin River Valley. The site has been named Deena Reena and is just as important, if not more important, than the abundantly-rich Kutikina cave. The nomination also referred to the area as comprising 'most of the last great temperate wilderness remaining in Australia and one of the last remaining in the world'. The nomination claimed that the region satisfied all 4 criteria required for the nomination to the World Heritage List. It claimed that it had many geological sites of local, State, national and international significance and unique, rare and superb natural features and areas of exceptional natural beauty. It asserted that 'virtually all other areas in the temperate zone have been so substantially modified by man that their pristine wilderness characteristics have been destroyed'. The nomination gave a list of rare and endangered endemic plants which occur there and stated that the area was one of great importance for the conservation of Australian fauna. The nomination came before the World Heritage Committee last December. Representatives of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the International Council of Monuments and Sites ( ICOMOS) expressed their views that the nominated areas satisfied all relevant criteria and was suitable for inclusion in the World Heritage List. These are the two expert bodies which advise the World Heritage Committee on nominations. The ICOMOS representative made particular reference to the prehistoric cave sites which, he said, had been reported as making the area as significant as the great cave sites of southern France. He also referred to a report that an expedition to South West Tasmania in 1981 had collected some 4,000 specimens of invertebrates, of which 25% were new to science. The World Heritage Committee had before it reports of the proposal for dam construction in the area. Members of the Committee expressed strong concern at the possible loss of the heritage value of the nominated area if the dam was built. In the result, the Committee decided to include the Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks in the World Heritage List. However, in so doing it adopted a statement expressing its concern at the likely effect of dam construction on those natural and cultural characteristics which made the property of outstanding universal value. The Committee recommended that the Australian authorities take all possible measures to protect the integrity of the property. The Senate will be well aware of the attitude of the present Government in Tasmania to the construction of the dam. That Government has adopted an attitude which sets at nought the irreplaceable heritage value of the area and Australia' s international responsibilities in the matter. That Government had, of course, sought the withdrawal of the nomination of the property after Australia had already put forward the nomination at Tasmania's request and so identified it to the world as having the outstanding universal values that make it part of the world cultural and natural heritage. Even if a withdrawal of the nomination could have removed or reduced Australia's responsibilities in the matter, such a withdrawal would have amounted to a denial of the principles enshrined in the World Heritage Convention. It is to the credit of the previous Government that it did not take the course suggested by Tasmania and adopted an attitude consistent with Australia's responsible guardianship of the area. On 30 March 1983 the Commonwealth Government made the World Heritage (Western Tasmania Wilderness) Regulations as an exercise of the legal powers then available to it to prevent construction of the dam. As the Senate will be aware, measures to enforce those regulations and the question of the validity of the regulations are matters that are now before the High Court. Mr President, it would be hard to imagine a stronger cause for the enactment of Commonwealth legislation in this internationally important area of heritage protection than has now arisen in relation to South West Tasmania. Australia has sought international recognition of the value of the area and the prestige and publicity which flows from World Heritage Listing. It has taken steps to make the property eligible for international assistance. At the same time, a State Government, following the request by the State itself for nomination of the property, now seeks to destroy some of its most important features. The insistence of the Tasmanian Government on proceeding with its plans for the dam has flown in the face of great concern, even outrage, both here and overseas at the impact of the dam on the area. There appears now to be no prospect of saving the property by further appeals to the Tasmanian Government or by further consultation. Commonwealth legislation, as a matter of last resort, is the only responsible course. When the Bill is passed it is the intention of the Government to seek to have made proclamations under its provisions for the purpose of protecting and conserving the Western Tasmania Wilderness National Parks if, after the entry into force of the Act, the circumstances make that course necessary. Debate (on motion by Senator Martin) adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(2.59) —To enable Estimates committees to meet, I move: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns, I advise honourable senators that Estimates committees A, B and C will meet at 3.15 p.m. Estimates Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber, Estimates Committee B in committee rooms 1 and 2 and Estimates Committee C in committee room 6. Prior to the sitting of the committees, the bells will be rung for three minutes. The Senate stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. Senate adjourned at 3 p.m. The following papers were presented: Air Navigation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 39. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 50. Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 40. Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 41. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 52, 53, 54. Export Control Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 44. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 47. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 45. Naval Defence Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 42. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 43, 46. Patents Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 48. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 51. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Regulations-1983- No. 1-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). No. 2-(Health Commission Ordinance). Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No. 1) 1982 and Patents Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 49.